# Bans coming



## Ray

Biden expected to announce executive actions on gun control Thursday


President Biden will announce new executive action on gun control on Thursday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki indicated Wednesday.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I’m not for bans on anything, I do think there’s reasonable steps we can take on semi-automatic weapons to make them obtainable while not as easily obtainable as other guns. We’ll see what the announcement is, the Supreme Court will strike most any executive action down as far as bans IMO given the current makeup of the court though.


----------



## RandomElk16

Gonna be a wild few months.


----------



## DallanC

Out of all the potential weapons we can own (excluding class 3), IMO a semi-auto 12GA shotgun is by far the most lethal and dangerous. A 12GA loaded up with #4 Buckshot can do a helluva lot more damage, quicker than a AR15 of any type.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter

And I am sure that within a hour of his signing of the order that there will be court papers filed hopefully with a gun friendly judge. 

Why worry about what is going to happen, it will happen so why not just sit back and wait to see just what is in the Executive Action that he signs?


----------



## Ray

Here’s what he’s going after









Biden to target 'ghost guns,' stabilizing braces in new gun control actions


President Biden will announce gun control measures on Thursday, which a White House official described as an initial set of actions aimed at addressing all forms of gun violence.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## Bax*

Stabilizing braces seems like an odd target IMO


----------



## Ray

Bax* said:


> Stabilizing braces seems like an odd target IMO


that’s exactly what I thought. I haven’t heard of them being used in any of the mass shootings. Or “ghost guns”either...

sadly, I think this is just the start


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Ray said:


> that’s exactly what I thought. I haven’t heard of them being used in any of the mass shootings. Or “ghost guns”either...
> 
> sadly, I think this is just the start


I don’t. I think it’s for show saying “we did something on guns” when really they won’t do much at all.


----------



## Ray

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I don’t. I think it’s for show saying “we did something on guns” when really they won’t do much at all.


I hope you’re right. The statement that has
me concerned in the article is “initial set of actions aimed at addressing all forms of gun violence.”


----------



## Critter

Ray said:


> that’s exactly what I thought. I haven’t heard of them being used in any of the mass shootings. Or “ghost guns”either...
> 
> sadly, I think this is just the start


The guy in Boulder had one on the Ruger 556 pistol that he used.

They have been talking about ghost guns for quite a while 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

DallanC said:


> Out of all the potential weapons we can own (excluding class 3), IMO a semi-auto 12GA shotgun is by far the most lethal and dangerous. A 12GA loaded up with #4 Buckshot can do a helluva lot more damage, quicker than a AR15 of any type.
> 
> -DallanC


This is true. It’s why I think some sort of further regulation for all semi-automatic weapons making the process a little deeper would be okay. I’m not for banning any of them. If everyone could come to the table in good faith some decent legislation on specific guns could be addressed that kept them available and also harder to get. The problem is one side says “they’re coming for your guns” the other side has its fringes that do want some guns banned, and nothing ends up being done at all. Democrats have a very slight majority in congress. There are Democrats I very much expect will oppose most gun legislation and would not pass bans. Even among a lot of Democrats major gun legislation is not popular. People like AOC are the loudest part of the party, they’re not the majority of the party. The truth is it’s simply a political football that gets ran down the field by both sides and neither are all that serious either way in regards to it aside from political gain. I expect little things around the edges to say “hey we kept our promise we did something” when it really won’t do anything.


----------



## Critter

The big problem with compromise is that the Dems all want it on one side, and it isn't their side.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC

#1DEER 1-I said:


> This is true. It’s why I think some sort of further regulation for all semi-automatic weapons making the process a little deeper would be okay. I’m not for banning any of them.


Ok, like what? The vast majority of the firearms used in shootings were all purchased legally. What additionally would you add to the current process?

-DallanC


----------



## Fowlmouth

Biden can't walk up stairs and he can't complete a sentence. He is incapable of thinking for himself. 4 years can't come soon enough.


----------



## MrShane

Old Joe should think about banning diesel costing over $2.50/gal.


----------



## Bax*

I find it fascinating that mass shootings are the primary catalyst for their action. But looking at the statistics, they only represent a very small number of firearm deaths proportionately.

More deaths come from domestic violence, robberies, gang activity, and other illicit illegal activities. Yet we seem to focus on one aspect (not that I don’t want them to stop).

Solution: arm grandmas, crossing guards, teachers, mailmen, pedestrians, shop keepers, DallanC, wives, mothers, husbands, etc.

If everyone could potentially be armed, I’m sure the bad guy will think long and hard about trying to commit a crime or about harming another person.

I know people will disagree, but I firmly believe more laws only hurt the law biding. After all, criminals aren’t people who follow the law.


----------



## Brettski7

Ray said:


> that’s exactly what I thought. I haven’t heard of them being used in any of the mass shootings. Or “ghost guns”either...
> 
> sadly, I think this is just the start


Testing the waters to see what he can start getting away with. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter

The problem with the left is that they won't admit that the laws that are in place don't work. Their whole solution to a problem is to place more laws on the books for the crooks to ignore. 

As a example here is what Colorado has, most of what the left want's in all states. 

Magazine ban, no more than 15 rounds

Universal background checks for everyone

Red Flag law, where you can report a person and their firearms are taken away automatically even before a court hearing.

Here is a stupid one that the legislature just passed that the Governor will quite likely sign. If a firearm is stolen you have 5 days to report it. Now who wouldn't report a stolen firearm. They pushed this law through because of a homicide that happened with a stolen handgun that the owner didn't report for some reason. But how is this type of a law going to stop a crime?

As Bax stated, all laws do is to put more restrictions on the honest person, crooks could care less. They are already breaking a law by using a firearm or even possessing one. 



As for restriction semi automatic weapons, what's next? Pump action shotguns?


----------



## Brettski7

Bax* said:


> I find it fascinating that mass shootings are the primary catalyst for their action. But looking at the statistics, they only represent a very small number of firearm deaths proportionately.
> 
> More deaths come from domestic violence, robberies, gang activity, and other illicit illegal activities. Yet we seem to focus on one aspect (not that I don’t want them to stop).
> 
> Solution: arm grandmas, crossing guards, teachers, mailmen, pedestrians, shop keepers, DallanC, wives, mothers, husbands, etc.
> 
> If everyone could potentially be armed, I’m sure the bad guy will think long and hard about trying to commit a crime or about harming another person.
> 
> I know people will disagree, but I firmly believe more laws only hurt the law biding. After all, criminals aren’t people who follow the law.


Bingo. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigT

Seven people were murdered on Easter Sunday in Chicago. All seven were shot to death and were likely gang related. Most of the victims between 18-40. As another mentioned, the amount of deaths caused by gang violence, domestic violence, etc is far greater than from a mass shooting. But you really don't hear about these shootings because they are so common, it doesn't grab the medias attention other than where it locally happens, etc. They also don't fit into the liberal agenda. Last year in Minneapolis, after the city decided to defund the police, homicides and other violent crimes shot to record levels. Enough to where local militias were created to help patrol the areas as the police were jumping out of the department as fast as they could. But this wasn't just in Minneapolis... Chicago had record levels of homicides, gun violence, etc.. And that's saying something. But many major cities experienced this as liberal leaning cities sought to defund police. Many of those cities have strict gun laws... But as mentioned many times, bad guys don't give a rip about gun laws...

I agree with Critter, there's little we can do but sit back and watch. We've seen that the dems won't work with the republicans. They will push forward whether there is bipartisan support or not. All we can hope for is that the Supreme Court shoots it down no pun intended! This presidency has been a freak show so far...


----------



## backcountry

Critter said:


> The problem with the left is that they won't admit that the laws that are in place don't work. Their whole solution to a problem is to place more laws on the books for the crooks to ignore.
> 
> As a example here is what Colorado has, most of what the left want's in all states.
> 
> Magazine ban, no more than 15 rounds
> 
> Universal background checks for everyone
> 
> Red Flag law, where you can report a person and their firearms are taken away automatically even before a court hearing.
> 
> Here is a stupid one that the legislature just passed that the Governor will quite likely sign. If a firearm is stolen you have 5 days to report it. Now who wouldn't report a stolen firearm. They pushed this law through because of a homicide that happened with a stolen handgun that the owner didn't report for some reason. But how is this type of a law going to stop a crime?
> 
> As Bax stated, all laws do is to put more restrictions on the honest person, crooks could care less. They are already breaking a law by using a firearm or even possessing one.
> 
> 
> 
> As for restriction semi automatic weapons, what's next? Pump action shotguns?


As I understand it, the Colorado red flag law (and most others) actually requires a court proceeding. The evidentiary standards are different for the initial order but at a minimum they are done over the phone if not in person. I've got mixed feelings on such laws but the initial ERPO only lasts 14 days before requiring a follow up court case in which the those who applied for the order must show the threat remains true via the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence".

As was stated earlier, domestic violence is a major risk factor for shooting victims and these can be an important tool to protect family members. I'm torn but the reality of these laws is often more nuanced and thoughtful than the internet claims. The fact that the initial order only lasts 14 days seems reasonable IF you can get past forced surrendering of arms, which is a big IF to consider.

I can tell you second hand that there aren't enough tools available for those in harms way to prevent their own demise in these situations. Without going into details I know of at least one woman who could benefit from such a law. People will abuse any law but these do have the potential to save lives. Time will tell if they work well enough to justify the infringement and survive long term legal challenges.






Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly







leg.colorado.gov




.

On a different note...this is a legitimate moment to "both sides" the issue. Neither party has shown much interest in compromise. And we keep mocking and voting out moderates from both parties so I'm guessing the team sports will only get worse. Hard to ignore how both sides have run the RINOs and DINOs out of town. We are often our own worst enemies.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Brettski7 said:


> Testing the waters to see what he can start getting away with.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Some of you talk out of both sides of your mouth. One minute his mental health is gone, the next minute he’s testing the waters and being all clever. It isn’t both ways.




Critter said:


> The problem with the left is that they won't admit that the laws that are in place don't work. Their whole solution to a problem is to place more laws on the books for the crooks to ignore.
> 
> As a example here is what Colorado has, most of what the left want's in all states.
> 
> Magazine ban, no more than 15 rounds
> 
> Universal background checks for everyone
> 
> Red Flag law, where you can report a person and their firearms are taken away automatically even before a court hearing.
> 
> Here is a stupid one that the legislature just passed that the Governor will quite likely sign. If a firearm is stolen you have 5 days to report it. Now who wouldn't report a stolen firearm. They pushed this law through because of a homicide that happened with a stolen handgun that the owner didn't report for some reason. But how is this type of a law going to stop a crime?
> 
> As Bax stated, all laws do is to put more restrictions on the honest person, crooks could care less. They are already breaking a law by using a firearm or even possessing one.
> 
> 
> 
> As for restriction semi automatic weapons, what's next? Pump action shotguns?


Such flawed logic. Then let’s make meth, heroine, and remove speed limits as well as it being illegal to drink and drive because well....criminals will still drink and drive so all those laws are useless because some people will obviously break them. Your entire logic is that laws don’t work so why have any? And the killing efficiency of a semiautomatic weapon is simply more. Semi-automatic weapons are more affective killing machines than loading that requires an action every shot. Many of you are right it’s not AR’s that are the boogey man. Semi automatic guns however absolutely ARE the weapons used in the vast majority of criminal activity and killing. Why? Well because they are very efficient at what they do.


DallanC said:


> Ok, like what? The vast majority of the firearms used in shootings were all purchased legally. What additionally would you add to the current process?
> 
> -DallanC


Universal background checks, a waiting period, a mental health screening, and requirement that they are registered in a database, and add on a $150 tax to semi-automatic weapons making more simple action guns far cheaper. Raise the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon to 21. It’s currently like this with hand guns but not all semi-automatic weapons. Also, require a gun safety course before being able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon. The fact hunting requires a course while buying the actual gun requires nothing should cause pause in any of our minds. It should be a pain in the ass to buy certain guns. 

Many of you contest laws and stricter regulations don’t work, and yet how many fully automatic weapons are used across the country in crimes or in these high profile cases? They go with the easiest weapon they can get, and yes that may be a car if the gun isn’t available but why not add some reasonable layers to get a hold of that gun? Bolt action, pump action, and lever action guns are not in the same league as semi-automatic weapons as far as efficiency of killing especially with less experienced users. I think the current process is fine for them. Semi-automatic weapons between rifles and handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals because they are very good at what they do. Add layers to get a hold of them. Laws don’t stop all crime, but laws do and can make crimes harder to commit. I don’t think outright bans are the right approach, but I do think being completely resistant to making the process to obtain certain guns a little more stringent of a process is being willfully stubborn in the approach.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

BigT said:


> Seven people were murdered on Easter Sunday in Chicago. All seven were shot to death and were likely gang related. Most of the victims between 18-40. As another mentioned, the amount of deaths caused by gang violence, domestic violence, etc is far greater than from a mass shooting. But you really don't hear about these shootings because they are so common, it doesn't grab the medias attention other than where it locally happens, etc. They also don't fit into the liberal agenda. Last year in Minneapolis, after the city decided to defund the police, homicides and other violent crimes shot to record levels. Enough to where local militias were created to help patrol the areas as the police were jumping out of the department as fast as they could. But this wasn't just in Minneapolis... Chicago had record levels of homicides, gun violence, etc.. And that's saying something. But many major cities experienced this as liberal leaning cities sought to defund police. Many of those cities have strict gun laws... But as mentioned many times, bad guys don't give a rip about gun laws...
> 
> I agree with Critter, there's little we can do but sit back and watch. We've seen that the dems won't work with the republicans. They will push forward whether there is bipartisan support or not. All we can hope for is that the Supreme Court shoots it down no pun intended! This presidency has been a freak show so far...


Drunk drivers don’t give a rip about drunk driving laws either.....why have any laws I guess right? The talk of “gun free zones” from conservatives and talk of places like Chicago ignore the fact all you have to do is cross a state or county line in most these places and buy any gun you want. If the entire country more heavily regulated the purchase of some guns they would be harder to get. The precise reason it’s an argument is that people like yourself don’t want the inconvenience of them being harder to get. Seems like what you’re actually worried about is the law doing what it’s intended? And yes, many of those communities DO care about the violence in their communities and it is being worked on, so just like Democrats use AR15’s as their prop stick maybe you should stop using the lives lost in Chicago as your political talking point. All you have is political talking points you’re regurgitating here. You talk about the “liberal agenda” lol. Then go on to use your gross Chicago conservative talking point in the next breath with your own agenda. This is the entire issue. No one is reasonable in the approach to this. You are every bit as agenda driven as any leftist. If everyone wasn’t so busy pointing their finger they might have time to look in the mirror.

The irony in many of the comments saying “laws don’t work” while simultaneously being bent out of shape that the process to get a hold of certain guns may be more of a process (laws working) is quite something. The literal fear is that the laws will in fact make certain weapons harder to obtain. I’m not saying ban anything. Add layers to getting a hold of certain weapons? Yeah on most measures I’m not opposed. Can’t stop all criminals or crimes but I’m fine making it harder on them.


----------



## Brettski7

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Some of you talk out of both sides of your mouth. One minute his mental health is gone, the next minute he’s testing the waters and being all clever. It isn’t both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Such flawed logic. Then let’s make meth, heroine, and remove speed limits as well as it being illegal to drink and drive because well....criminals will still drink and drive so all those laws are useless because some people will obviously break them. Your entire logic is that laws don’t work so why have any? And the killing efficiency of a semiautomatic weapon is simply more. Semi-automatic weapons are more affective killing machines than loading that requires an action every shot. Many of you are right it’s not AR’s that are the boogey man. Semi automatic guns however absolutely ARE the weapons used in the vast majority of criminal activity and killing. Why? Well because they are very efficient at what they do.
> 
> Universal background checks, a waiting period, a mental health screening, and requirement that they are registered in a database, and add on a $150 tax to semi-automatic weapons making more simple action guns far cheaper. Raise the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon to 21. It’s currently like this with hand guns but not all semi-automatic weapons. Also, require a gun safety course before being able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon. The fact hunting requires a course while buying the actual gun requires nothing should cause pause in any of our minds. It should be a pain in the ass to buy certain guns.
> 
> Many of you contest laws and stricter regulations don’t work, and yet how many fully automatic weapons are used across the country in crimes or in these high profile cases? They go with the easiest weapon they can get, and yes that may be a car if the gun isn’t available but why not add some reasonable layers to get a hold of that gun? Bolt action, pump action, and lever action guns are not in the same league as semi-automatic weapons as far as efficiency of killing especially with less experienced users. I think the current process is fine for them. Semi-automatic weapons between rifles and handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals because they are very good at what they do. Add layers to get a hold of them. Laws don’t stop all crime, but laws do and can make crimes harder to commit. I don’t think outright bans are the right approach, but I do think being completely resistant to making the process to obtain certain guns a little more stringent of a process is being willfully stubborn in the approach.


The only flawed logic is your own, if one would even call it logic. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Many of you contest laws and stricter regulations don’t work, and yet how many fully automatic weapons are used across the country in crimes or in these high profile cases?


Literally almost zero. Getting a fully automatic weapon is incredibly difficult, expensive as hell, costing at least 10k for the gun and it takes 9 months to get, on average, because of the extensive background check they go through.

Judging by your talk tracks, maybe you meant “fully semi-automatic”?


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

When I saw that AR pistols were getting popular I thought to myself that it would only be a matter of time until someone did something stupid with one, just like the bump stocks , then they would also be banned. The problem is that you can conceal a mini semi automatic rifle. I'm not for banning guns but why does anyone need one of these anyway?


----------



## taxidermist

Thank the folks that voted for "the man". I think he should be paying more attention to what's happening in the Arctic with the Russians than pissing off the American People!!


----------



## BPturkeys

backcountry said:


> As I understand it, the Colorado red flag law (and most others) actually requires a court proceeding. The evidentiary standards are different for the initial order but at a minimum they are done over the phone if not in person. I've got mixed feelings on such laws but the initial ERPO only lasts 14 days before requiring a follow up court case in which the those who applied for the order must show the threat remains true via the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence".
> 
> As was stated earlier, domestic violence is a major risk factor for shooting victims and these can be an important tool to protect family members. I'm torn but the reality of these laws is often more nuanced and thoughtful than the internet claims. The fact that the initial order only lasts 14 days seems reasonable IF you can get past forced surrendering of arms, which is a big IF to consider.
> 
> I can tell you second hand that there aren't enough tools available for those in harms way to prevent their own denise in these situations. Without going into details I know of at least one woman who could benefit from such a law. People will abuse any law but these do have the potential to save lives. Time will tell if they work well enough to justify the infringement and survive long term legal challenges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leg.colorado.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> On a different note...this is a legitimate moment to "both sides" the issue. Neither party has shown much interest in compromise. And we keep mocking and voting out moderates from both parties so I'm guessing the team sports will only get worse. Hard to ignore how both sides have run the RINOs and DINOs out of town. We are often our own worst enemies.


Stop confusing us with the truth. 
But seriously, your "On a different note" comment is right, absolutely spot on.


----------



## Brettski7

Ray said:


> Literally almost zero. Getting a fully automatic weapon is incredibly difficult, expensive as hell, costing at least 10k for the gun and it takes 9 months to get, on average, because of the extensive background check they go through.
> 
> Judging by your talk tracks, maybe you meant “fully semi-automatic”?


No I think he meant what he said. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Springville Shooter

I think the comparison between Drunk Driving and Class 3 firearms with overall gun control is simply not analogous. In the case of drunk driving, it is illegal. Simple as that. There are no additional laws being put in place in attempts to reinforce the main point. This is not true with regards to gun control. Like drinking and driving, shooting people is illegal. The comparison would be correct if we were trying to put laws into place that would PUNISH non offenders such as raising the age to buy alcohol, placing a HUGE tax on alcohol, or putting a 10 day waiting period on alcohol purchases. What if the state made it illegal for anyone deemed as 'alcoholic' to buy alcohol. Now we are talking apples to apples. 

The use of the Class 3 example is ridiculous as well. Crimes are not committed with these types of weapons because literally no one get them because of cost and process constraints. Placing similar constraints on all semi automatic firearms would limit the freedom of millions of citizens for a miniscule benefit. Kinda like banning cars in attempts to prevent drunk driving accidents. 

The fact is that gun control advocates simply do not want to address the real problems that are the drivers behind gun violence. Mainly because they are uncomfortable to deal with and often implicate their own constituents. Its much easier to ignore the root problems and take advantage of the chance to punish your political enemies. 

The best news is that this issue is fast becoming the biggest driver of unity that we have right now. EVERYONE is out buying guns at record pace including those on the left side of the isle. Like ONeeye said, only the fringe extremists on the left are really pushing this, meanwhile, mainstream folks on both sides are buying guns at record levels. Even big, black, scary, semi-automatic guns. --------SS


----------



## Brettski7

7MM RELOADED said:


> When I saw that AR pistols were getting popular I thought to myself that it would only be a matter of time until someone did something stupid with one, just like the bump stocks , then they would also be banned. The problem is that you can conceal a mini semi automatic rifle. I'm not for banning guns but why does anyone need one of these anyway?


Doesn’t matter about need. Why do you need that 7mm, or that .308, or any gun you own for that matter. It’s about that thing in the constitution, 2A I think it is. 

Also for another poster, red flag laws are an infringement also on. It violates 4A due process, and infringing on a persons 2A when no crime has been committed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brettski7

Springville Shooter said:


> I think the comparison between Drunk Driving and Class 3 firearms with overall gun control is simply not analogous. In the case of drunk driving, it is illegal. Simple as that. There are no additional laws being put in place in attempts to reinforce the main point. This is not true with regards to gun control. Like drinking and driving, shooting people is illegal. The comparison would be correct if we were trying to put laws into place that would PUNISH non offenders such as raising the age to buy alcohol, placing a HUGE tax on alcohol, or putting a 10 day waiting period on alcohol purchases. What if the state made it illegal for anyone deemed as 'alcoholic' to buy alcohol. Now we are talking apples to apples.
> 
> The use of the Class 3 example is ridiculous as well. Crimes are not committed with these types of weapons because literally no one get them because of cost and process constraints. Placing similar constraints on all semi automatic firearms would limit the freedom of millions of citizens for a miniscule benefit. Kinda like banning cars in attempts to prevent drunk driving accidents.
> 
> The fact is that gun control advocates simply do not want to address the real problems that are the drivers behind gun violence. Mainly because they are uncomfortable to deal with and often implicate their own constituents. Its much easier to ignore the root problems and take advantage of the chance to punish your political enemies.
> 
> The best news is that this issue is fast becoming the biggest driver of unity that we have right now. EVERYONE is out buying guns at record pace including those on the left side of the isle. Like ONeeye said, only the fringe extremists on the left are really pushing this, meanwhile, mainstream folks on both sides are buying guns at record levels. Even big, black, scary, semi-automatic guns. --------SS


Nailed it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

meh


----------



## Vanilla

Well he couldn't have Trump being the president to implement the most gun control measures since Clinton! Of course President Biden is going to have to try and out-do his predecessor on this one, being as he ran on a gun control platform. 

I agree with 1-Eye that this is a move to say "See, we did something!" I also agree with Brettski that it is a good litmus test on what he can get away with. 

I think almost everyone agrees that we can and should have "reasonable" regulations of firearms. It is what "reasonable" means where we start having our differences. If not a ban, what is the next option for the left? There is very little out in the public forum beyond bans. Same goes for the right. There is lots of opposition for bans, but what "reasonable" regulations are okay? 

My biggest issue is I'm tired of "feel-good" options. I don't like passing a law just so we can say we passed a law. I want it to have meaning and an impact. So much of the discussion around this topic is all "feel-good" measures and wouldn't really do anything. So why would I or should we support it?


----------



## Vanilla

PS- Topics like gun control will never have solutions, because neither team wants solutions. Both sides have immense amounts of money in coffers fundraised on this issue alone. If it got resolved, where would they get their money?


----------



## Vanilla

Brettski7 said:


> Doesn’t matter about need. Why do you need that 7mm, or that .308, or any gun you own for that matter. It’s about that thing in the constitution, 2A I think it is.
> 
> Also for another poster, red flag laws are an infringement also on. It violates 4A due process, and infringing on a persons 2A when no crime has been committed.


No right in the Bill of Rights (IE-constitution) is absolute and limitless. This is a principle recognized in our country for as long as the document itself has existed. So to suggest that no regulation is appropriate under the 2nd Amendment is legally and constitutionally incorrect. 

Also, due process is not in the 4th Amendment. Just as an FYI.


----------



## Bax*

I love legal language and study it regularly. So I want to call to attention the Preamble of the US Constitution below:



US Constitution Preamble said:


> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Note that the Preamble immediately outlines the reasoning and purpose of creating the Constitution. But before we explore the Preamble, lets look at what the term "constitution means":

Webster's Dictionary defines Constitution as - the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. 

I think its important to understand what this term means as it sets the tone for the intent and purpose of the document. Had any other term been used to define what their intent was, then we could be having a different conversation. Imagine if it were called the "US List of Good Ideas" instead. But our forefathers were very deliberate in the verbiage and terminology they used, and they wisely chose _Constitution_ as the operative word because they wanted to guarantee and ensure specific rights to all citizens it governs.

Now lets explore the Preamble itself. Its fascinating to consider the reasoning they used to use this document to govern the nation. It wasn't just something to govern the fledgling nation, but it was something they knew would be the cornerstone of America forever.

I think the first thing that catches my eye is that certain words are capitalized immediately tells me that there are certain things that were important to the Framers of the Constitution. In fact these were so important that they made these terms stand out (called Defined Terms in legal jargon for those interested).

So what was the purpose? I don't think it could be more plain. To ensure we are safe, secure, prosperous, and endowed with liberty (the quality or state of being free) and they knew that these points outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were necessary to secure and maintain the liberty of each and everyone of us including our Posterity (which tells me that this document was meant to live on forever and not just satisfy the needs of 1791 when it was written).

Our Founding Fathers wanted to form a national government to secure freedom from Britain, but they also wanted to ensure that this new government put fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at risk so they needed to build upon the framework outlined in the Constitution that set the ground work for government structure by establishing the Bill of Rights that solidified points that they knew were important to guarantee to citizens to prevent infringement of those unalienable rights they held so important.

Obviously the Bill of Rights encompasses many topics but for the sake of this post and for consistency, lets look at the 2nd Amendment:



Bill of Rights said:


> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution
> 
> *Amendment II* - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Pay particular attention to the verbiage I underlined. They immediately call out why they feel these Amendments are important to American Citizens. They wanted "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" by telling the entities defined in the Constitution that they cannot infringe upon these rights. In fact, they actually felt so passionately about one of these rights knowing that it could dismantle democracy if it were violated that they used that text within the Amendment itself.

The first thing that stands out to me with the 2A, aside from the capitalized defined terms, is the use of commas to _separate_ ideas or concepts that although related are uniquely separate.

I have heard many arguments that militias are the ones who should be allowed to own firearms and that the purpose of the 2A was to grant militias the right to bear arms. But I beg to differ, the commas clearly denote that although militias can bear arms, they are separate ideas linked together. It is clear that the right to keep and bear Arms (also capitalized) is guaranteed to ALL citizens.

Really the point of my rambling here is that attacks on firearms by the Washington Fatcats really isnt surprising and truthfully I dont need a firearm (life is so busy anymore), but my biggest concern is that if we crack the door open, even an inch, and are willing to give up even on of our rights, then what else will we give up in the future? We've all heard the saying "give them an inch, then you've given them a mile." So my message here is simply that we cant give an inch unless we want to give a mile.


----------



## Bax*




----------



## Brettski7

Vanilla said:


> No right in the Bill of Rights (IE-constitution) is absolute and limitless. This is a principle recognized in our country for as long as the document itself has existed. So to suggest that no regulation is appropriate under the 2nd Amendment is legally and constitutionally incorrect.
> 
> Also, due process is not in the 4th Amendment. Just as an FYI.


14. My mistake. And yes it violates both. Plain and simple. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

Now we are getting geeked out on constitutional language. That's my jam! 



Bax* said:


> I think its important to understand what this term means as it sets the tone for the intent and purpose of the document. Had any other term been used to define what their intent was, then we could be having a different conversation. Imagine if it were called the "US List of Good Ideas" instead. But our forefathers were very deliberate in the verbiage and terminology they used, and they wisely chose _Constitution_ as the operative word because they wanted to guarantee and ensure specific rights to all citizens it governs.


Agreed, but it is also relevant to consider and remember that the original constitution did not contain individual rights. These all came in amendments after the constitution was ratified and became our country's ruling document/law. It took 3 years to ratify the Bill of Rights, which started this notion of recognizing individual rights in the constitution. 




Bax* said:


> I have heard many arguments that militias are the ones who should be allowed to own firearms and that the purpose of the 2A was to grant militias the right to bear arms. But I beg to differ, the commas clearly denote that although militias can bear arms, they are separate ideas linked together. It is clear that the right to keep and bear Arms (also capitalized) is guaranteed to ALL citizens.


Yeah, these are silly arguments. The Supreme Court has already addressed this, and it's a closed issue. The 2nd Amendment provides individual rights to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations.


----------



## Bax*

Vanilla said:


> Now we are getting geeked out on constitutional language. That's my jam!
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but it is also relevant to consider and remember that the original constitution did not contain individual rights. These all came in amendments after the constitution was ratified and became our country's ruling document/law. It took 3 years to ratify the Bill of Rights, which started this notion of recognizing individual rights in the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, these are silly arguments. The Supreme Court has already addressed this, and it's a closed issue. The 2nd Amendment provides individual rights to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations.



Vanilla, I knew I liked you for a reason.

Yes. Timelines are very important to understand. And you are absolutely right that the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution was ratified. I personally believe that this was by design and also because they may not have known the full reaching effects of democracy and America until some time passed (I may be wrong).

Another interesting thing to consider (related but unrelated) is the evolution of the English language and how some words have changed meaning over time. This is fascinating to consider because certain words could entirely change context.


----------



## Airborne

For a fun thought experiment concerning compromise and 2A: Would you support a magazine ban for any mag holding more than 10 rounds meaning turn them in for $ the Gov pays ya back but on the other side of the compromise all sound suppressors (silencers) would be fully legal with a simple background check to get one much like a regular firearm?

We fought WWII with 8 round 'clips' after all, is 10 enough for ya? 

This is my idea of compromise--we give up something to get something. I would go for it...do I think there would be any less mass shootings or firearm deaths--nope, but that's not what this is about anyways


----------



## Critter

I like all these "feel good laws" that do nothing to address the problems with mental illness or for those who were on the FBI's watch list and the FBI did nothing about it. 

For 1 Eye, as for a full automatic weapon being used do you have a example of this happening? I doubt that you will find any.

Yes, semi automatic AR type weapons are used quite often but what happens when they are banned? I have always said a pump action shotgun can do just as much damage if not more. What do we do when that starts to happen? Ban pump action shotguns? As for magazine capacity you may perhaps be able to get 5 or 6 into the tube on a pump but with a little bit of practice you can reload them quite fast and remember that those who would be using it are in a area where after the first shot it will be mass confusion and panic, so if the shooter remains calm they can reload quite easily.


----------



## Bax*

Airborne said:


> For a fun thought experiment concerning compromise and 2A: Would you support a magazine ban for any mag holding more than 10 rounds meaning turn them in for $ the Gov pays ya back but on the other side of the compromise all sound suppressors (silencers) would be fully legal with a simple background check to get one much like a regular firearm?
> 
> We fought WWII with 8 round 'clips' after all, is 10 enough for ya?
> 
> This is my idea of compromise--we give up something to get something. I would go for it...do I think there would be any less mass shootings or firearm deaths--nope, but that's not what this is about anyways



Thats actually a really interesting concept. 

Give a little to get a little. Negotiation 101


----------



## Vanilla

Bax* said:


> Vanilla, I knew I liked you for a reason.


Oh, don't go doing or saying anything rash, now! 



Bax* said:


> Yes. Timelines are very important to understand. And you are absolutely right that the Bill of Rights came after the Constitution was ratified. I personally believe that this was by design and also because they may not have known the full reaching effects of democracy and America until some time passed (I may be wrong).


This, and the Bill of Rights was actually somewhat controversial. In fact, there were actually 12 rights, not 10, that passed congress and went to the states for ratification originally. The first two on the list did not make the cut when the states had their say. (One later became the 27th amendment, however.) We needed the constitution ratified so it could govern, so there were lots of compromises, including not having the Bill or Rights as part of it originally and kicked that can down the road a bit. 



Bax* said:


> Another interesting thing to consider (related but unrelated) is the evolution of the English language and how some words have changed meaning over time. This is fascinating to consider because certain words could entirely change context.


For sure. This is something that gives people trouble all the time. And not just the meaning of words directly, but how the world has turned as well. I subscribe to the notion of original intent, but realize that is not perfect as the world can't be viewed through a 1788 lens to answer all of 2021's questions.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Brettski7 said:


> The only flawed logic is your own, if one would even call it logic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This isn't a rebuttal.



Ray said:


> Literally almost zero. Getting a fully automatic weapon is incredibly difficult, expensive as hell, costing at least 10k for the gun and it takes 9 months to get, on average, because of the extensive background check they go through.
> 
> Judging by your talk tracks, maybe you meant “fully semi-automatic”?


And I'm perfectly fine with making semi-automatic weapons of all kinds harder to get.



taxidermist said:


> Thank the folks that voted for "the man". I think he should be paying more attention to what's happening in the Arctic with the Russians than pissing off the American People!!


84 million Americans voted for him, and the other guy was pissing off plenty of American people himself. Tighter gun restrictions are fairly broadly supported by the American people as well, not bans, but people do support stricter gun laws.



Springville Shooter said:


> I think the comparison between Drunk Driving and Class 3 firearms with overall gun control is simply not analogous. In the case of drunk driving, it is illegal. Simple as that. There are no additional laws being put in place in attempts to reinforce the main point. This is not true with regards to gun control. Like drinking and driving, shooting people is illegal. The comparison would be correct if we were trying to put laws into place that would PUNISH non offenders such as raising the age to buy alcohol, placing a HUGE tax on alcohol, or putting a 10 day waiting period on alcohol purchases. What if the state made it illegal for anyone deemed as 'alcoholic' to buy alcohol. Now we are talking apples to apples.
> 
> The use of the Class 3 example is ridiculous as well. Crimes are not committed with these types of weapons because literally no one get them because of cost and process constraints. Placing similar constraints on all semi automatic firearms would limit the freedom of millions of citizens for a miniscule benefit. Kinda like banning cars in attempts to prevent drunk driving accidents.
> 
> The fact is that gun control advocates simply do not want to address the real problems that are the drivers behind gun violence. Mainly because they are uncomfortable to deal with and often implicate their own constituents. Its much easier to ignore the root problems and take advantage of the chance to punish your political enemies.
> 
> The best news is that this issue is fast becoming the biggest driver of unity that we have right now. EVERYONE is out buying guns at record pace including those on the left side of the isle. Like ONeeye said, only the fringe extremists on the left are really pushing this, meanwhile, mainstream folks on both sides are buying guns at record levels. Even big, black, scary, semi-automatic guns. --------SS


The comparison is in whether laws are effective or worth having, not the comparison of the situations/subject. And yes, some of those with their hair on fire over guns will find most moderate Democrats will not back bans on weapons. You might MIGHT could get AR bans through, but that would be the very peak of anything done and the Supreme Court would nock it down. Most politicians use it as a political football with no actual intentions of ever doing anything in regards to it. Gun confiscation/major bans will not happen, so some can rest far easier. I'm okay with stricter processes mainly due to that reason. Major bans or confiscation is never happening, I have no issues making certain guns harder to obtain like we've done with several guns already.


Critter said:


> I like all these "feel good laws" that do nothing to address the problems with mental illness or for those who were on the FBI's watch list and the FBI did nothing about it.
> 
> For 1 Eye, as for a full automatic weapon being used do you have a example of this happening? I doubt that you will find any.
> 
> Yes, semi automatic AR type weapons are used quite often but what happens when they are banned? I have always said a pump action shotgun can do just as much damage if not more. What do we do when that starts to happen? Ban pump action shotguns? As for magazine capacity you may perhaps be able to get 5 or 6 into the tube on a pump but with a little bit of practice you can reload them quite fast and remember that those who would be using it are in a area where after the first shot it will be mass confusion and panic, so if the shooter remains calm they can reload quite easily.


An example? My entire point is you can absolutely make certain weapons harder to fall into the wrong hands. The fully automatic weapons laws are a perfect example of yes, if it's harder to get, the occurrences where they are used in crimes/killing sprees disappears. Addressing mental health is also a great thing to focus on, we shouldn't be focused on just the thing our political party says we should. Both can help improve the issue of gun violence/violence in general in America. Simply saying "it doesn't fix the whole problem, so don't try to fix it at all" is a bad way to approach improving any problem. Reasonable gun restrictions are not something I'm opposed to, and too many use the "but they'll ban them" argument as their defense to resist ANY improvements on gun laws. Conservatives are every bit as delusional, agenda driven, and closed minded on this issue as any leftist who wants all guns ban. You are simply the other side of the coin.

Yes there are some people who would like to see a blanket gun ban, those people are few and far between especially politically. We can talk about reasonable improvements on gun issues without jumping to "ban them" or "they're going to ban them and confiscate them". It won't happen.


----------



## Bax*

Vanilla said:


> For sure. This is something that gives people trouble all the time. And not just the meaning of words directly, but how the world has turned as well. I subscribe to the notion of original intent, but realize that is not perfect as the world can't be viewed through a 1788 lens to answer all of 2021's questions.


I have known a few people who actually have old dictionaries in their personal libraries for this specific purpose. They always impress me when they say something like "When this was originally written, the word XXXXX had a different meaning than it did today. Looking at this dictionary from 1875, they defined this term as meaning YYYYYY. Isnt that interesting? It completely changes the context of the discussion!"

I dont have the time to vet this article, but it gives an example of the changing of meanings over time and illustrates the point Vanilla and I are discussing: 20 words that once meant something very different


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Here's a story on todays orders









Biden targets 'ghost guns' and 'red flag' laws in new gun control measures


The president wants to curb the spread of homemade firearms that lack traceable serial numbers.




www.nbcnews.com


----------



## middlefork

I'm not sure why anyone would be ok with tracking firearms. It is not the business of government to know everything about individuals.
The issue of taxing firearms much like other property taxes is nothing more than another way to take said property when the taxes are not paid. It doesn't make any difference if it is before you acquire said property or after.


----------



## backcountry

Brettski7 said:


> Doesn’t matter about need. Why do you need that 7mm, or that .308, or any gun you own for that matter. It’s about that thing in the constitution, 2A I think it is.
> 
> Also for another poster, red flag laws are an infringement also on. It violates 4A due process, and infringing on a persons 2A when no crime has been committed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is an infringement on several liberties for a short period until the court requires traditional evidentiary standards, normally two weeks. People disagree on wether that is constitutional and justifiable. I'm stuck in the middle myself with no solid conclusion. 

While I'm not certain on much I will say calling such laws simply "feel good" is overly flippant. Anybody that has helped someone in a domestic violence situation would never write off such a tool so easily. The woman I know is in a household with a gun owning drug addict. If she were to finally call for such an order she would likely succeed but even that is tenuous to pull off without escalating the meth addict to violence. These women (normally) are walking a razors edge of self protection and extreme danger and having such a last ditch legal avenue can literally be the difference between life and death. 

And that's not touching the issue of suicide. 

Per mental health angle....all too often people want to toss out one infringement for another. Not to mention we already have accepted avenues for infringing on individual liberty with mental health (involuntary commitment) which counter arguments to gun control laws tend to deem justifiable. Going much further would be a substantial invasion of medical privacy. It really goes to show how few liberties are absolute and how inconsistent we are in our logic. As long as it's not our in-group we tend to turn a blind eye but fight like hell when it's us.

Talking about compromise and solutions requires us to inherently play in the grey. As Vanilla said, in different words, the current politics of tossing red meat to the base is incompatible with such goals. And it ultimately makes us more hostile to each other and eventually resolution. And I for one would love to know my wife is safer at work (called authorities at least twice now because of threats) and the women in my life have means to escape their dangerous, gun owning abusers.


----------



## Bax*

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Here's a story on todays orders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden targets 'ghost guns' and 'red flag' laws in new gun control measures
> 
> 
> The president wants to curb the spread of homemade firearms that lack traceable serial numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com





Joe Biden said:


> But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell crowd — you can’t tell [yell]* “fire” in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons. So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.


Source: Remarks by President Biden on Gun Violence Prevention | The White House.

This statement was very unsettling to me. It was originally in the Fox article but was removed so I am copying directly from the Whitehouse.

So no right is absolute if you are law-biding? I really dont like the idea behind this statement at all guys.

This isnt about guns. To me this is about _every_ right. If every right isnt absolute (assuming you arent a criminal who voluntarily gave up that right by committing a crime), then what is the point?


----------



## Ray

Bax* said:


> Source: Remarks by President Biden on Gun Violence Prevention | The White House.
> 
> This statement was very unsettling to me. It was originally in the Fox article but was removed so I am copying directly from the Whitehouse.
> 
> So no right is absolute if you are law-biding? I really dont like the idea behind this statement at all guys.
> 
> This isnt about guns. To me this is about _every_ right. If every right isnt absolute (assuming you arent a criminal who voluntarily gave up that right by committing a crime), then what is the point?


couldn’t agree more, good sir. This is death by a thousand cuts, I fear this is only the beginning


----------



## Brettski7

Bax* said:


> Source: Remarks by President Biden on Gun Violence Prevention | The White House.
> 
> This statement was very unsettling to me. It was originally in the Fox article but was removed so I am copying directly from the Whitehouse.
> 
> So no right is absolute if you are law-biding? I really dont like the idea behind this statement at all guys.
> 
> This isnt about guns. To me this is about _every_ right. If every right isnt absolute (assuming you arent a criminal who voluntarily gave up that right by committing a crime), then what is the point?


I believe in that same article he goes on to say that he wants to ban ARs and high capacity magazines along with allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers. 

If people can’t get a clue then really...well I don’t know what to say that wouldn’t get me banned. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> While I'm not certain on much I will say calling such laws simply "feel good" is overly flippant. Anybody that has helped someone in a domestic violence situation would never write off such a tool so easily. The woman I know is in a household with a gun owning drug addict. If she were to finally call for such an order she would likely succeed but even that is tenuous to pull off without escalating the meth addict to violence. These women (normally) are walking a razors edge of self protection and extreme danger and having such a last ditch legal avenue can literally be the difference between life and death.


I believe I was the one that originally used "feel-good" to describe the executive orders, but was not referring to red flag laws specifically. The two direct orders that prohibit things in the executive orders I do not think will make us any more safe, and are "feel good" measures, IMO. (regulating kit guns and stabilizing braces) The portion about the red flag laws is more informational, and not any action, as I understood it. 

Domestic violence is a very serious issue, you will never see me minimize or disregard it in any way. And knowing what I know on the issue, it has persuaded me that there is room for red flag laws in a 2nd amendment supporter's mind.


----------



## Brettski7

backcountry said:


> It is an infringement on several liberties for a short period until the court requires traditional evidentiary standards, normally two weeks. People disagree on wether that is constitutional and justifiable. I'm stuck in the middle myself with no solid conclusion.
> 
> While I'm not certain on much I will say calling such laws simply "feel good" is overly flippant. Anybody that has helped someone in a domestic violence situation would never write off such a tool so easily. The woman I know is in a household with a gun owning drug addict. If she were to finally call for such an order she would likely succeed but even that is tenuous to pull off without escalating the meth addict to violence. These women (normally) are walking a razors edge of self protection and extreme danger and having such a last ditch legal avenue can literally be the difference between life and death.
> 
> And that's not touching the issue of suicide.
> 
> Per mental health angle....all too often people want to toss out one infringement for another. Not to mention we already have accepted avenues for infringing on individual liberty with mental health (involuntary commitment) which counter arguments to gun control laws tend to deem justifiable. Going much further would be a substantial invasion of medical privacy. It really goes to show how few liberties are absolute and how inconsistent we are in our logic. As long as it's not our in-group we tend to turn a blind eye but fight like hell when it's us.
> 
> Talking about compromise and solutions requires us to inherently play in the grey. As Vanilla said, in different words, the current politics of tossing red meat to the base is incompatible with such goals. And it ultimately makes us more hostile to each other and eventually resolution. And I for one would love to know my wife is safer at work (called authorities at least twice now because of threats) and the women in my life have means to escape their dangerous, gun owning abusers.


You don’t strip liberties for thinking someone MIGHT commit a crime. Not how it works. People aren’t committed for no reason either. There is usually, from my experience at least, some actual diagnosis, outburst, history, etc required. I have mental illness in my family so again that’s just from my experience. But no I wouldn’t support just committing someone without some type of actual due process. 

I know a thing or two of domestic violence not from friends but within my family also. I have actual personal experience with this. I DO NOT SUPPORT RED FLAG LAWS. There now you know someone. Maybe it’s just me but I have no sympathy for people who continue to stay with someone who abuse them, continue to make excuses, continue to not defend themselves or arm themselves with the tools to do so. That even goes for my own family members. I’ve seen people get themselves out of this kind of situation as they should. They have the means and avenues to escape their situation. I’ve seen it. It almost sounds as if you think women are not capable of being independent or something. Not saying that’s the case. It just almost comes off that way. 

Suicide, other ways to kill oneself than a gun and I don’t have sympathy for someone who commits it and I’ve known people who have. I view it as an extremely selfish act. I have sympathy for the people they leave behind who they hurt extremely and left with emotional scars. Maybe I’m just a harsh person idk. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

Brettski7 said:


> Maybe it’s just me but I have no sympathy for people who continue to stay with someone who abuse them, continue to make excuses, continue to not defend themselves or arm themselves with the tools to do so.


This might be the single most ignorant comment I've ever read on this forum, and that is saying something! Just woefully ignorant.


----------



## Brettski7

Vanilla said:


> This might be the single most ignorant comment I've ever read on this forum, and that is saying something! Just woefully ignorant.


That’s your opinion of course you are entitled to it. I understand they fear for themselves etc. Again I have personal experience here with this. But you have said stuff way more ignorant on here that’s for sure IMO of course. I understand it’s not how you feel on the situation, Maybe you think women can’t be independent or take care of themselves, or whatever may drive your belief that’s fine. But ignorance suggest a lack of understanding, knowledge, experience etc on a subject. I have all of those things on this subject. Oh and this applies to men and women.

But I’m not derailing the thread anymore. Neither of use will change the others views so it’s pretty safe to just move on. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Irish Lad

Vanilla said:


> This might be the single most ignorant comment I've ever read on this forum, and that is saying something! Just woefully ignorant.


It was a very challenging post. I believe there are no easy or simple solutions to domestic violence, mental illness or suicide.The love of my life for 40 years was diagnosed with Lewy body dementia a year ago. It's an absolutely horrible disease. Getting her mental illness help has been challenging.


----------



## backcountry

Brettski,

The comment was definitely ignorant. It lacked fundamental recognition of how staying with the abuser is actually the safest option sometimes. Trying to leave can mean death, plain and simple. Staying can be a "tool" to "defend themselves", to use your own words.

And TROs and involuntary commitment can both be executed without a traditional due process hearing. They are only two ways in which states and American society have restricted individual liberty because of potential, not actually committed, threats to safety. Red Flag laws rely on a lot of the logic and histories of TROs.

Vanilla.... sorry for the confusion. My comment was indirectly about Critter's use of the phrase given he brought up red flag laws. I apologize for missing the original usage. Red Flag laws are rightfully controversial but can't be easily written off as "feel good". I think we are in agreement on that conclusion.


----------



## backcountry

Irish Lad said:


> It was a very challenging post. I believe there are no easy or simple solutions to domestic violence, mental illness or suicide.The love of my life for 40 years was diagnosed with Lewy body dementia a year ago. It's an absolutely horrible disease. Getting her mental illness help has been challenging.


I'm sorry to hear that. Dementia in its various forms is a brutal experience for the individual and their loved ones. I lost my MIL to frontotemporal dementia as much as ALS last year and it was extremely difficult. I hope you can find some help for her and yourself to cope with the disease. I'm hopeful we'll get better at helping people with these forms of dementia soon as the current options are 
lacking.

Take care.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Brettski7 said:


> I believe in that same article he goes on to say that he wants to ban ARs and high capacity magazines along with allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
> 
> If people can’t get a clue then really...well I don’t know what to say that wouldn’t get me banned.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This has been a conversation ever since the last ban was taken down. I look at what has actually happened. And actual gun legislation successfully implemented is close to zero in regards to banning, confiscating, etc. You live in a frightened state of what might be, I look at what is and has been. I’m not worried in the least at most of the things you are aside from political talking points. As I said, the most you may see is an AR ban, and the court will overturn it given its current makeup.


----------



## Critter

backcountry said:


> Vanilla.... sorry for the confusion. My comment was indirectly about Critter's use of the phrase given he brought up red flag laws. I apologize for missing the original usage. Red Flag laws are rightfully controversial but can't be easily written off as "feel good".


On the feel good laws, Colorado has a red flag law in place. Did it do any good in Boulder when the family was concerned when they knew there was a problem with the shooter?

There have been a number of documented cases so far of girlfriends reporting their boyfriends just before hunting seasons have started just to screw with them knowing that it will be months before the firearms are returned. And in the 2 or 3 years that the law has been in effect it hasn't stopped one person from doing what it was intended to stop. If they really want this type of law allow the accused a hearing in days instead of months to see if they can get their firearms back.

But I do agree on domestic violence. I've seen what it can do to a person and the control that one person can have over another with it. But this is another problem that politicians refuse to address and do anything about. They talk big about what they are going to do but in the end it is just talk.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Irish Lad

backcountry said:


> I'm sorry to hear that. Dementia in its various forms is a brutal experience for the individual and their loved ones. I lost my MIL to frontotemporal dementia as much as ALS last year and it was extremely difficult. I hope you can find some help for her and yourself to cope with the disease. I'm hopeful we'll get better at helping people with these forms of dementia soon as the current options are
> lacking.
> 
> Take care.



Thank you!


----------



## backcountry

Critter said:


> On the feel good laws, Colorado has a red flag law in place. Did it do any good in Boulder when the family was concerned when they knew there was a problem with the shooter?
> 
> There have been a number of documented cases so far of girlfriends reporting their boyfriends just before hunting seasons have started just to screw with them knowing that it will be months before the firearms are returned. And in the 2 or 3 years that the law has been in effect it hasn't stopped one person from doing what it was intended to stop. If they really want this type of law allow the accused a hearing in days instead of months to see if they can get their firearms back.
> 
> But I do agree on domestic violence. I've seen what it can do to a person and the control that one person can have over another with it. But this is another problem that politicians refuse to address and do anything about. They talk big about what they are going to do but in the end it is just talk.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


Critter,

For any law, I can show you cases of how people slipped through and still caused harm. Roughly 10,000 people still die each year from drunk driving related accidents but that doesn't mean the laws aren't good. The legal system will always be imperfect and inherently unable to capture every potent crime. 

Per the CO red flag law, a 1 year review actually found strong evidence of its success. Even liberty minded officers who were against it have found it successful in saving lives. It's stopped plenty more than 1 person for the intended purpose. It looks like 46 cases in 2020 (the law's first year) were granted permanent status and banned ownership for a year. Those filing the claims and even some affected by it seem to believe it helped save lives. And correct me if I'm wrong, the law is only 15 months old, not 2-3 years.









Colorado’s red flag law is one year old. Here’s who’s using the law to confiscate guns — and why.


In its first year, the controversial law has proven to be a useful tool for law enforcement and fears of widespread misuse have been largely unrealized, a Denver Post review found.




www.denverpost.com





Is it perfect? No way. But according to analysis the courts have actually succeeded pretty well in protecting citizens from fraudulent applications and they are prosecuting those who knowingly abuse the system. The beauty is fraudulently filing court documents is a serious crime and perjury is a felony. Those who knowingly lie under any form of oath should be punished. And luckily judges are preventing many initial orders despite the lower threshold for evidence. The system can work and there are plenty of civil servants committed to making that happen.

I understand the trepidation. I have reason to support such laws but I'm skeptical as well. But let's at least use fact based evidence and not the internet heresay that is all too common. When we look at the evidence we see a very complex situation that political ideologies often ignore. It's not a panacea nor is it a law with rampant abuse. For perspective, there were less than the predicted 170 applications the first year. The language in the article is hedged but it actually sounds like less than 120, or roughly 70% of the expected figure. That can be rightfully interpreted as evidence of a system being judiciously applied.

I'm glad we have so many citizens fighting to protect liberties. But I'm also glad we have individuals trying to protect citizens in harms way. I just hope a thoughtful balance is found.


----------



## Bax*

Bax* said:


> Source: Remarks by President Biden on Gun Violence Prevention | The White House.
> 
> This statement was very unsettling to me. It was originally in the Fox article but was removed so I am copying directly from the Whitehouse.
> 
> So no right is absolute if you are law-biding? I really dont like the idea behind this statement at all guys.
> 
> This isnt about guns. To me this is about _every_ right. If every right isnt absolute (assuming you arent a criminal who voluntarily gave up that right by committing a crime), then what is the point?


BTW- Joe's quote further illustrates that he doesnt even know what he was talking about. If he knew anything about history (particularly colonial history when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written) then he should have known about Letters of Marque and Reprisal where the US Government basically hired private citizens who owned military grade warships with cannons and military hardware to attack and commandeer ships belonging to other countries (and yes they were armed to the gills with all sorts of weapons including small arms). So he cannot lie to you and me by saying this:



Lyin' Biden said:


> From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.


People could and did own some crazy weapons back then. So dont listen to his reinvention of history. He has no idea of what he is talking about or signing.


----------



## backcountry

Bax,

I'm sorry you had to experience that from a loved one. I won't ever know what that's like but find you sharing such personal experiences a thoughtful addition to the conversation. 

I don't believe gun control is like screens on a submarine (new one for me) but I have developed a skepticism to the legislative process because of its unintended harms. I do wonder how we solve something so substantial without concurrent "social reform". But I'm even less confident in the possibility of thoughtful and effective social measures than I am in gun control. The other element is how many well meaning laws are on the book that aren't effectively or efficiently used. Even when I like a new law I cringe at adding more heft to our already bloated bureaucracies. (PS, anybody else have to look up spelling for that word every time?)

But I'm also in a place where I recognize no action is unacceptable. Mass shootings aren't the most common form of gun violence but their affects are particularly heinous. On more than one occasion I've had to brace for violence after my wife's business received a viable threat. The uncertainty and randomness of it is a unique form of violence in and of itself. Even with reporting and actionable threats many agencies are hesitant because they ultimately recognize the legal hurdles protecting individual liberty and due process. And it's even more difficult when you realize these people are often average civilians with no records or criminality until they choose to kill so many people.

Tough issues and it's sounds like in all the differences presented, most of us recognize that fact. That's often a good place to start when reverse engineering these crimes.


----------



## Critter

backcountry said:


> Critter,
> 
> For any law, I can show you cases of how people slipped through and still caused harm. Roughly 10,000 people still die each year from drunk driving related accidents but that doesn't mean the laws aren't good. The legal system will always be imperfect and inherently unable to capture every potent crime.
> 
> Per the CO red flag law, a 1 year review actually found strong evidence of its success. Even liberty minded officers who were against it have found it successful in saving lives. It's stopped plenty more than 1 person for the intended purpose. It looks like 46 cases in 2020 (the law's first year) were granted permanent status and banned ownership for a year. Those filing the claims and even some affected by it seem to believe it helped save lives. And correct me if I'm wrong, the law is only 15 months old, not 2-3 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado’s red flag law is one year old. Here’s who’s using the law to confiscate guns — and why.
> 
> 
> In its first year, the controversial law has proven to be a useful tool for law enforcement and fears of widespread misuse have been largely unrealized, a Denver Post review found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.denverpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it perfect? No way. But according to analysis the courts have actually succeeded pretty well in protecting citizens from fraudulent applications and they are prosecuting those who knowingly abuse the system. The beauty is fraudulently filing court documents is a serious crime and perjury is a felony. Those who knowingly lie under any form of oath should be punished. And luckily judges are preventing many initial orders despite the lower threshold for evidence. The system can work and there are plenty of civil servants committed to making that happen.
> 
> I understand the trepidation. I have reason to support such laws but I'm skeptical as well. But let's at least use fact based evidence and not the internet heresay that is all too common. When we look at the evidence we see a very complex situation that political ideologies often ignore. It's not a panacea nor is it a law with rampant abuse. For perspective, there were less than the predicted 170 applications the first year. The language in the article is hedged but it actually sounds like less than 120, or roughly 70% of the expected figure. That can be rightfully interpreted as evidence of a system being judiciously applied.
> 
> I'm glad we have so many citizens fighting to protect liberties. But I'm also glad we have individuals trying to protect citizens in harms way. I just hope a thoughtful balance is found.


I put the Denver Post right up with CNN and MSNBC as a source of information that isn't biased. If they were leaning any further to the left then would be laying on their side. 

I'm not saying that it hasn't worked but the abuse of the system is a lot greater than you will find anywhere in print. They don't happen to mention the number of police officers who have had complaints filed against them using the red flag law or the time that it took the officers to fight it. Some at their own expense and others at the cost to taxpayers.


----------



## BigT

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Drunk drivers don’t give a rip about drunk driving laws either.....why have any laws I guess right? The talk of “gun free zones” from conservatives and talk of places like Chicago ignore the fact all you have to do is cross a state or county line in most these places and buy any gun you want. If the entire country more heavily regulated the purchase of some guns they would be harder to get. The precise reason it’s an argument is that people like yourself don’t want the inconvenience of them being harder to get. Seems like what you’re actually worried about is the law doing what it’s intended? And yes, many of those communities DO care about the violence in their communities and it is being worked on, so just like Democrats use AR15’s as their prop stick maybe you should stop using the lives lost in Chicago as your political talking point. All you have is political talking points you’re regurgitating here. You talk about the “liberal agenda” lol. Then go on to use your gross Chicago conservative talking point in the next breath with your own agenda. This is the entire issue. No one is reasonable in the approach to this. You are every bit as agenda driven as any leftist. If everyone wasn’t so busy pointing their finger they might have time to look in the mirror.
> 
> The irony in many of the comments saying “laws don’t work” while simultaneously being bent out of shape that the process to get a hold of certain guns may be more of a process (laws working) is quite something. The literal fear is that the laws will in fact make certain weapons harder to obtain. I’m not saying ban anything. Add layers to getting a hold of certain weapons? Yeah on most measures I’m not opposed. Can’t stop all criminals or crimes but I’m fine making it harder on them.


Wow!!!!

You have no clue... Maybe what I do for a living is very much related to crime, shootings, etc... I cover an area which includes Chicago because I help provide safety and security support for many people who are on the ground in those areas. I go to Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Kansas City, etc.... quite regularly. I was on the ground in Denver right after the STEM School shooting to teach RUN, HIDE, Fight... So assuming this is my agenda is dead wrong. I personally see the bad things going on. And yeah, it's not covered nor really cared about by the national media unless it meets a certain criteria. Of course locals are hurt by the tragedies. I read about them daily and it makes me tear up. I talk and meet with people who have been in a mass shooting and survived. So don't tell me my political agenda! Like Steven Rinella told the vegan dude... I know a hell of a lot more about this crap than you do. 

Honestly I am not sure where you took the left turn in my first post in this thread... My point was, bad people will do bad things no matter the means. If guns were completely controlled, then they would use other means to kill people. So then what? Do you ban knives, cars, bats, bows and arrows, etc? 

As far as background checks... Making it harder to get a gun doesn't impact me one iota. 

Thanks for providing me with some afternoon excitement!


----------



## backcountry

Critter said:


> I put the Denver Post right up with CNN and MSNBC as a source of information that isn't biased. If they were leaning any further to the left then would be laying on their side.
> 
> I'm not saying that it hasn't worked but the abuse of the system is a lot greater than you will find anywhere in print. They don't happen to mention the number of police officers who have had complaints filed against them using the red flag law or the time that it took the officers to fight it. Some at their own expense and others at the cost to taxpayers.


Denver Post is biased, but it's also the only major newspaper left in the state. The statistics are legit and properly researched though. Speculating about possible abuse doesn't hold a candle to actual research backed up by facts.

And you did state a very black and white statement that "that it hasn't worked" when you stated "and in the 2 or 3 years that the law has been in effect it hasn't stopped one person from doing what it was intended to stop". The data shows it has helped and has stopped most of the fraudulent claims in their tracks. Just because there are people that try to file fraudulent claims doesn't mean that actual succeed.

Can you actually show how many officers have had red flag applications filed against them and that such applications made it past the first stage? I feel for any citizen who has falsified court documents filed against them but I haven't seen anything but innuendo about such claims.

And the Colorado law clearly requires a hearing within 14 days (not months) of the temporary ERPO in which the defendant has legal representation. At that hearing the burden of proof, a stricter clear and convincing standard, is on the state or those filing the order. After that the defendant has another opportunity, this time to terminate the permanent order but the burden of proof shifts to them. The system isn't nearly as lax as you seem to claim.

I'm not even necessarily for the law but I do get tired with the easily researched falsehoods surrounding these controversial issues. I actually think the cliches undermine the arguments against the laws.


----------



## middlefork

A whole lot of people back in the day voted for Temperance, the end all cure all. Tell me how that worked out.

In my opinion a lot more emphasis on mental health would be more constructive than the current proposals for guns.


----------



## Bax*

middlefork said:


> A whole lot of people back in the day voted for Temperance, the end all cure all. Tell me how that worked out.
> 
> In my opinion a lot more emphasis on mental health would be more constructive than the current proposals for guns.


agreed. Who thinks shooting a person or group of people is a logical solution to their problem?

that’s a huge mental issue


----------



## Critter

I have no idea of just how many police officers have had it filed on them. About 6 months or so into the red flag law one of the local TV stations did some reports on them and what the officers ended up going through to keep their jobs along with the court and attorneys fees. Since that time only odd ball things pop up about the law and those who are abusing it.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry

I agree that just plain sucks, Critter. We agree on that. Abusing well intentioned laws helps no one.


----------



## backcountry

I just rocked my baby girl to sleep. Its late. She's a couple months old now. She was born premature possibly because of issues related to this thread (we'll never know for sure). But I have to wonder....

Do most Americans consider mass shootings abhorrent enough to try to solve together? Do most Americans believe gun violence, whether self inflicted or perpetuated upon others, is a uniquely American (in scale and quantity) enough issue to finally work together to at least attempt to try to "solve"? Because right now data says yes but political rancor exposes we aren't. That's a sad reality to teach a child to grow up in no matter what political ideology you happen to prefer. I don't know about you, but I'd personally like to see the " greatest nation on earth" do a little better for the next generation about to inherit such a mess. Trying seems better than throwing up our hands and kicking the can down the road. But who am I but an older, than most people guess, new father trying to make the world a bit better for the next generation. I'm just a RINO or DINO for the world's growing number of political paleontologist to observe in the past tense.

But I guess I'd rather be a political dinosaur than cling to the malignancy that is modern political team sports. Maybe I'm not a dinosaur and enough Americans will root out this cancer and show me we are as great as we claim to be. Maybe. Maybe not. Only time will tell.


----------



## taxidermist

I think this thread has just gone to far and now everyone is sounding as if they are sitting in a room discussing the bill of rights. I see it this way....We (The American People) have a right to bear arms, either on the wall (LOL) or on our person. If someone feels they need a 500 round mag, suppressed and full auto weapon, so be it. I guess its their right. If that individual is responsible and locks said weapon in a secure theft tight safe, there isn't an issue with a CRIMINAL steeling it and using against the public. 

Background checks should be required for firearm sales. But one could lie on the 4573 to obtain a firearm. Responsible Americans aren't out shooting up the cities and scaring citizens. Its the criminals that obtain them illegally from that so called "responsible individual" as they are pilfering through there dresser after breaking into the home. This action is why "Joey" wants "gun control" Oh, and "ghost guns"..... Ya, get a 3D printer and you can make them. I cant afford a printer, but if I were to steal firearms, rob homes, people, and sell crack on the street I bet I could. So now you'll have to have a background to buy a 3D printer????..... I could chase this rabbit all day down its hole, I wont and cant, its giving me a headache.


----------



## JerryH

What is everyone's thoughts on back child support & gun purchases? Like the new hunting & fishing license law. If you can't pay child support should you be able to buy guns & ammo? 

Your thoughts?


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Democrats and gun control isn't anything new. If they could abolish the second amendment today, they would do it. It has never been about safety, it has always been about control - *especially *now. Since they've been making moves to install themselves into power permanently, the real question is how hard and how far they push it until the midterms? That is the ticking clock. At the least, keep your eye peeled on H.R. 1, the filibuster, (edit...) and court packing. In an indirect way, these will effect gun control, which is the hardest item on their checklist; and as that goes, what we are seeing right now is the low hanging fruit.


----------



## Critter

JerryH said:


> What is everyone's thoughts on back child support & gun purchases? Like the new hunting & fishing license law. If you can't pay child support should you be able to buy guns & ammo?
> 
> Your thoughts?


There is a special place in hell for those who don't support their children through state ordered child support, but you can not compare purchasing a hunting and or fishing license to purchasing a firearm. One is protected under the Constitution where the other is completely controlled by the state.

Now if you want to change the law and make a deadbeat dad or mom a felon then by all means prevent them from purchasing a firearm. If there was any violence in the relationship then by all means take them to court and tag them as a threat and deny them the right, but allow them their day in court so that they can defend themselves. Don't just pass a law that says that they can't own firearms and then put their court hearing out for two or three months.


----------



## wyogoob

Lone_Hunter said:


> Democrats and gun control isn't anything new. If they could abolish the second amendment today, they would do it. It has never been about safety, it has always been about control - *especially *now. Since they've been making moves to install themselves into power permanently, the real question is how hard and how far they push it until the midterms? That is the ticking clock. At the least, keep your eye peeled on H.R. 1, the filibuster, (edit...) and court packing. In an indirect way, these will effect gun control, which is the hardest item on their checklist; and as that goes, what we are seeing right now is the low hanging fruit.


I know thousands, perhaps billions, of Democrats. I don't know any of them that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Ray

wyogoob said:


> I know thousands, perhaps billions, of Democrats. I don't know any of them that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment.


I personally know several that would like to. There are certainly thousands more than the few I know that would also like to. Even if it’s the minority that wants it, you should always take threats seriously.


----------



## Critter

The argument that I usually get from my Democrat friends who hunt is that the AR type rifles have no business in the hunting woods. They usually don't like semi automatic anything including shotguns. 

But I just ask them what is going to happen and how they are going to feel if they come after their pumps and bolt actions when people start to use them in these killings.


----------



## JerryH

Critter said:


> The argument that I usually get from my Democrat friends who hunt is that the AR type rifles have no business in the hunting woods. They usually don't like semi automatic anything including shotguns.
> 
> But I just ask them what is going to happen and how they are going to feel if they come after their pumps and bolt actions when people start to use them in these killings.


I love semi auto's so don't take this the wrong way. Maybe some of the fear of them comes from all these aftermarket ways to manipulate the basic platform?


----------



## Critter

Do you remember back in the Clinton days when they came out with the ban on "assault rifles" and then came out with what their definition was of one? 

When they were finished it included just about any and all semi automatic rifles depending on if they had a pistol grip or a detachable magazine. Also if your semi automatic had a straight stock on it without a pistol grip it was fine but if you added a stock with the pistol grip it moved into the banned rifle category, just a different look for the same rifle.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Critter said:


> The argument that I usually get from my Democrat friends who hunt is that the AR type rifles have no business in the hunting woods. They usually don't like semi automatic anything including shotguns.
> 
> But I just ask them what is going to happen and how they are going to feel if they come after their pumps and bolt actions when people start to use them in these killings.


So don’t ban them. But there’s no reason to not make them more difficult to get as opposed to less advanced weapons in what they do. Those who want to ban guns are one side of the extreme. Those who don’t think anything at all should be done are the other side of the extreme. Neither are right, improvements can be made specifically in regards to the process of obtaining semi-automatic weapons. Anyone fully resistant to that is partisan, agenda driven, and falling into scare tactic talking points from politicians and lobbying groups. The title of this thread is “bans coming”. Biden’s executive orders essentially do nothing, yet this thread starts out “oH nO hE’s CoMiNg fUr My GuNs” No it’s political theatre by everyone involved and will continue through every year and every election cycle. Some improvements can absolutely be made and the broad American public supports more gun restrictions. The more and more things that happen with no reasonable action taken the more the tide will continue to turn against guns and broader support of more heavy handed restrictions. It’s worth taking small measure because the support for heavier gun restrictions is mounting and eventually will give more firepower for heavy handed legislation if the can continues getting kicked down the road with scare tactics, conspiracy theories, and political theatre.


----------



## wyogoob

Critter said:


> Do you remember back in the Clinton days when they came out with the ban on "assault rifles" and then came out with what their definition was of one?
> 
> When they were finished it included just about any and all semi automatic rifles depending on if they had a pistol grip or a detachable magazine. Also if your semi automatic had a straight stock on it without a pistol grip it was fine but if you added a stock with the pistol grip it moved into the banned rifle category, just a different look for the same rifle.


Just me but I'm thinking all semi-autos should have walnut stocks.......uh...American walnut of course.


----------



## wyogoob

Ray said:


> I personally know several that would like to. There are certainly thousands more than the few I know that would also like to. Even if it’s the minority that wants it, you should always take threats seriously.


I live a sheltered life I guess.

I know a lot of Democrats that would like to take some, hell maybe all, of our guns but don't any that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment. I guess what I'm saying is there are many interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.

Geeze, I was wondering when you guys was gonna start the "They're gonna take our guns away" thingie again. This is my favorite thread.


----------



## Vanilla

wyogoob said:


> I know a lot of Democrats that would like to take some, hell maybe all, of our guns but don't any that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment.* I guess what I'm saying is there are many interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.*


That’s the thing: there is only one interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that matters. The Supreme Court of the United States answered the question of whether it is only the right for a militia to keep and bear arms or if that right extends to individuals. The answer is it is an individual right. The Heller case closed that door on any other interpretation. So, yeah, there are lots of interpretations, but any of them that suggest it does not provide an individual right to keep and bear arms is wrong.

Now, you can fight about what “arms” people can keep and bear, and we’ll eventually get that one answered too if certain types of guns are banned, but the question about the individual right to keep and bear arms has been asked and answered. Not all opinions or interpretations are with entertaining, I guess is what I’m saying.


----------



## DallanC

wyogoob said:


> Just me but I'm thinking all semi-autos should have walnut stocks.......uh...American walnut of course.


Boyds has had some for a while. I'm not a fan of the A2 look... but some flat-tops look pretty cool with it. 

It probably comes with a flat brim hat.










-DallanC


----------



## dubob

wyogoob said:


> I know thousands, perhaps billions, of Democrats. I don't know any of them that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment.


Like Hell the don't; Here are the 46 DIMWIT (Democrap) senators that voted with Obama to give your 2nd Amendment rights to the U.N. in 2013.


Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
***** (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


----------



## Ray

dubob said:


> Like Hell the don't; Here are the 46 DIMWIT (Democrap) senators that voted with Obama to give your 2nd Amendment rights to the U.N. in 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baldwin (D-WI)
> Baucus (D-MT)
> Bennet (D-CO)
> Blumenthal (D-CT)
> Boxer (D-CA)
> Brown (D-OH)
> Cantwell (D-WA)
> Cardin (D-MD)
> Carper (D-DE)
> Casey (D-PA)
> *** (D-DE)
> Cowan (D-MA)
> Durbin (D-IL)
> Feinstein (D-CA)
> Franken (D-MN)
> Gillibrand (D-NY)Harkin (D-IA)
> Hirono (D-HI)
> Johnson (D-SD)
> Kaine (D-VA)
> King (I-ME)
> Klobuchar (D-MN)
> Landrieu (D-LA)
> Leahy (D-VT)
> Levin (D-MI)
> McCaskill (D-MO)
> Menendez (D-NJ)
> Merkley (D-OR)
> Mikulski (D-MD)
> Murphy (D-CT)
> Murray (D-WA)
> Nelson (D-FL)Reed (D-RI)
> Reid (D-NV)
> Rockefeller (D-WV)
> Sanders (I-VT)
> Schatz (D-HI)
> Schumer (D-NY)
> Shaheen (D-NH)
> Stabenow (D-MI)
> Udall (D-CO)
> Udall (D-NM)
> Warner (D-VA)
> Warren (D-MA)
> Whitehouse (D-RI)
> Wyden (D-OR)



Man, I forgot about that


----------



## wyogoob

What? Fox News or Facebook?

They wanted to take yer bazookas and tanks away, not the 2nd Admendment.


----------



## wyogoob

DallanC said:


> Boyds has had some for a while. I'm not a fan of the A2 look... but some flat-tops look pretty cool with it.
> 
> It probably comes with a flat brim hat.
> 
> View attachment 148030
> 
> 
> -DallanC


Ha ha.
Laminated wood. I don't think it's walnut. Thanks


----------



## backcountry

You mean the treaty that explicitly states on the first page that it's "Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations," by
"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system". 

Yeppers, that definitely was a vote which gave our 2nd Amendment rights to the UN. 

The fear mongering is what drove me away from ever supporting the NRA. And it continues to this day. I just watched the clip of Tucker Carlson telling how I "should" feel about the recent executive orders. For anyone curious, they "should make you uncomfortable". Talking points and marching orders are all too similar. The other talking point, "it's not about guns, it’s about having control over Americans." The rapidity with which we weave in, almost word for word, talking points into our dialogue is just wild to witness. Just look at Lone's post. 

Rremember how you should feel and to be afraid of "the man" out to control us and memory hole any inconveniences.


----------



## Springville Shooter

So let me get this straight........Democrats still want to control guns, Republicans still want to control uteruses, Everyone wants a Supreme Court that will only rule in their favor. SOSDD!!!-------SS


----------



## Bax*

Springville Shooter said:


> So let me get this straight........Democrats still want to control guns, Republicans still want to control uteruses, Everyone wants a Supreme Court that will only rule in their favor. SOSDD!!!-------SS


I mean it is uter-us, not uter-you.... 😉


----------



## backcountry

Springville Shooter said:


> So let me get this straight........Democrats still want to control guns, Republicans still want to control uteruses, Everyone wants a Supreme Court that will only rule in their favor. SOSDD!!!-------SS


I think its the SCOTUS issue that finally pushed me to abandon any party (still registered R for strategic reasons). Partisans on both sides all too often forgo consistency for efficiency or favorable rulings. I've failed one too many times in conversations with friends to expose how trying to undermine a disfavored SCOTUS ruling just undermines trust in the institution and the bulwark it serves as. 

The only place where I think I may differ with someone like Vanilla on a ruling like Heller isn't the seriousness and certainty of its provisions but instead the way in which society can quickly undermine trust in such an institution which can lead to a sort of legal decay. We have plenty of evidence now of partisans on both sides lining up to exploit those corrosive tensions to make their ideology law. When enough people lose faith in an institution than we see the erosion of tradition that is often all that is ultimately protecting our democratic republic. 

I'm probably a minority in believing that the justices are honorable citizens trying to faithfully interpret the Constitution in cases dealing with some our country's most dangerous tensions. I don't have to agree with their rulings to believe that. And there have plenty of cases that didn't "go my way".


----------



## dubob

wyogoob said:


> What? Fox News or Facebook?
> 
> They wanted to take yer bazookas and tanks away, not the 2nd Admendment.


No, from Common Sense Campaign .ORG. Here is a quote from another site, The New American, that spells out some inconvenient points for non-believers about what the Treaties intent actually was.


The New American said:


> Beyond that, here are a few provisions of the treaty that would, despite Goldring’s assurances, directly and immediately impact the full expression of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> • Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, *is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty*.
> 
> • Article 3 *places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions*, as well.
> 
> • Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also *placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme*.
> 
> • Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” *Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.” This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.*”


Yep, nothing there that would impinge or effectively void our 2nd Amendment rights. Yeah; right!


----------



## dubob

Just for you backcountry: 
*Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America*
Author: Mark R. Levin



Conservative Book Club said:


> Mark Levin exposes the full extent of judicial tyranny:
> 
> 
> Why we will never be able to regain democratic self government — and truly change the direction of public policy — until we curb activist judges
> How activist judges have managed to take over school systems, prisons, and private hiring and firing practices; ordered local governments to raise property taxes and states to grant benefits to illegal immigrants; and expelled God, prayer and the Ten Commandments from the public square
> What the Founding Fathers really intended the powers of the Supreme Court to be
> The forgotten American patriot who predicted that the Supreme Court would eventually arrogate to itself power over the other branches of government
> How America reached the point where the federal judiciary has effectively amassed more influence over modern life than any other branch of government
> Why, contrary to the Court’s claim in Roe v. Wade, the framers assumed no general right to privacy — because criminal and evil acts can be committed in privacy!
> How many of today’s Supreme Court justices will rely on anything but the Constitution to guide their decision-making
> The controversial and disgraceful behavior of the American Bar Association in giving highly politicized ratings to nominees for the federal bench
> The Supreme Court justice who admitted that today’s Court “bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life”
> Bush v. Gore: how it stopped a rogue state supreme court from violating the rule of law — yet how it opened the door for future courts to interfere in close elections, both at the state and federal levels
> The liberal cabal of hard left Democrat senators who will fight tooth and nail against any nominee to the Supreme Court who takes the Constitution seriously — and the president’s potent short-term weapon to beat back this obstructionist minority
> The clear-thinking Supreme Court justice who argued it is time to discard the many layers of ill-considered opinions and “begin the process of rethinking the Establishment Clause”
> The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law: how it restricts your right to free speech — especially political speech — with the active support of the courts
> Same-sex marriage: why this issue, like few others, will determine whether Congress has the will finally to defend its constitutional role as the public’s federal representative body
> How the independence of the judiciary can be preserved — and the unconstitutional influence of the federal courts curtailed


----------



## Catherder

*"Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America"


It would take a stretch of gargantuan proportions to view the current makeup of SCOTUS as this kind of threat from a conservative point-of-view. But don't worry, the liburl partisans are screaming the exact same thing right now. 

This is OK though. When the goal of keeping the base sufficiently outraged supersedes overall historical policy objectives and even passage of good, helpful law, maintaining these types of narratives remains useful even when the details become outdated or proven incorrect. *


----------



## wyogoob

dubob said:


> No, from Common Sense Campaign .ORG. Here is a quote from another site, The New American, that spells out some inconvenient points for non-believers about what the Treaties intent actually was.
> Yep, nothing there that would impinge or effectively void our 2nd Amendment rights. Yeah; right!


Here's some info that's not Alt-right:









Trump's Deceptive Arms Trade Treaty Argument - FactCheck.org


In announcing that he will withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that under the international agreement, the U.S. would allow "foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom."




www.factcheck.org





And then there's Wiki....boring...not many colorful adjectives or adverbs....no bold capital letters: Arms Trade Treaty - Wikipedia


----------



## backcountry

And here is the Treaty pdf. The claims about Article II are completely false. That being a completely fabricated allegation undermines the entire argument about infringement of individual rights under the 2nd Amendment.



https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/TheArmsTradeTreaty1/TheArmsTradeTreaty.pdf



It's just sad how easily completely bogus claims linger after being so easily fact checked. The ATT did impact the international trade of conventional firearms but never in a way that undermined our national sovereignty or that was inconsistent with the well defined liberties of the 2nd Amendment. Throughout the treaty it was made clear that the goals of the treaty were to be consistent with the State's laws. 

I hope people educate themselves more instead of listening to talking points. The ATT was never going to be ratified in the US anyways. Everything about the issue is culture war drama.


----------



## Bax*

This is MY favorite thread 😉


----------



## Stickboy2

Vanilla said:


> Now, you can fight about what “arms” people can keep and bear, and we’ll eventually get that one answered too if certain types of guns are banned, but the question about the individual right to keep and bear arms has been asked and answered. Not all opinions or interpretations are with entertaining, I guess is what I’m saying.


I believe Heller had some sputtering in there as to weapons in common use. It’s gonna be hard to argue that the AR pattern rifle isn’t in common use. The problem...SCOTUS has shown zero interest in picking up any 2A discussions, I wouldn’t hold your breath on a bailout from them anytime soon.


----------



## 35whelen

I just want to be able to buy powder, primers n Bullets. This reminds me of when I was trying to find those things in Illinois in 2009


----------



## Lone_Hunter

wyogoob said:


> I know thousands, perhaps billions, of Democrats. I don't know any of them that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment.


Like it or not, Gun control is a democratic party platform item. Their constituency goes along, so they are complicit. Common sentiment from what I've seen ranges from, "This is the 21st century", to "for muskets", etc etc, usually expressing the vein that the second amendment is an obsolete, and outdated concept that is no longer needed "in modern society". 
Gun control IS, owned by the Democrats, and they would get rid of the second amendment if they could. For example, here is a RARE moment of honesty from a Democrat:







Springville Shooter said:


> So let me get this straight........Democrats still want to control guns, Republicans still want to control uteruses, Everyone wants a Supreme Court that will only rule in their favor. SOSDD!!!-------SS


Supreme court has become a super legislator because congress critters regardless of party are too chicken**** to make the hard decisions because what they REALLY care about, is getting re elected. So they punt the hard stuff of to the supreme court. Hence, the idological leaning of the supreme court has become everything, and one reason why court packing is being discussed by the Democrats.

NOTHING in our country will ever improve until we have term limits, but that isn't happening unless there's a convention of states, its not like a body who can vote for their own pay raises is going to vote to limit their term of office.


----------



## dubob

wyogoob said:


> Here's some info that's not Alt-right:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Deceptive Arms Trade Treaty Argument - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> In announcing that he will withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that under the international agreement, the U.S. would allow "foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.factcheck.org


Since the ATT was never ratified by the Congress, technically we were not really a member of it and President Trumps unsigning of it was nothing more than a symbolic middle finger jester to Obozo at the NRA National Convention. We NRA Members just love this sort of jester to any and all dimwits. 😁 



wyogoob said:


> And then there's Wiki....boring...not many colorful adjectives or adverbs....no bold capital letters: Arms Trade Treaty - Wikipedia


 And Wiki ALSO absolutely never offers any real, definitive, or valid political analysis whatsoever.

I would consider this as valid, a political analysis from 'Ammoland Shooting Sports News' which says in part:


> The treaty urges record keeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including “end use or end user documentation” for a “minimum of ten years.” Each country is to “take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms.” Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.


The whole article can be seen here: What “Unsigning” the Arms Trade Treaty Means for American Gun Owners. But then, because you will probably label Ammoland another one of those fringe 'Alt-right' groups, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to actually seek out 'Truth, Justice, and the America way.'


----------



## dubob

backcountry said:


> And here is the Treaty pdf. The claims about Article II are completely false. That being a completely fabricated allegation undermines the entire argument about infringement of individual rights under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/TheArmsTradeTreaty1/TheArmsTradeTreaty.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> It's just sad how easily completely bogus claims linger after being so easily fact checked. The ATT did impact the international trade of conventional firearms but never in a way that undermined our national sovereignty or that was inconsistent with the well defined liberties of the 2nd Amendment. Throughout the treaty it was made clear that the goals of the treaty were to be consistent with the State's laws.
> 
> I hope people educate themselves more instead of listening to talking points. The ATT was never going to be ratified in the US anyways. Everything about the issue is culture war drama.


I actually DID read the entire text of the treaty - did you? If you had, and actually comprehended what you read and had bothered to piece together the intent of the document, then you would have noticed that there is a very complex interweaving of references and links of the document that spell out it's intent - which is the elimination of private ownership of firearms of any kind by civilians.


----------



## backcountry

I definitely read it and comprehend the document. I also understand legal documents that say may or urge instead of "shall" especially after specifically stating all such clauses are contingent on the State's laws. If we even were signatories that would mean our involvement with the treaty would be subordinate to our sovereign law. That isn't consistent with your claim that it gave "your 2nd Amendment rights to the U.N". That claim is absolute bunk and exposes a total incomprehension of the actual wording and legal impact of the treaty.

And it's obvious you know your claims are bunk given the actual treaty is inconsistent with your previous quotes specific allegations (ie Article II). You pivoted real fast when that was fact checked.

I think the US has seen what happens when conspiracies about secret cabals thrive. We are better than that. But too many people are consuming a steady diet of fear mongering to remember that fact. Which sucks as we need thoughtful conservatives at the table actually debating from a fact based place to create better legislation and governance. The balance that such statesman on the right use to provide is sorely missed.


----------



## backcountry

Back to the executive orders.....

Do people believe "ghost guns" will survive a SCOTUS challenge? It's a new subject to me and I don't have strong opinions either way.


----------



## middlefork

I'm not sure how a "ghost gun" given the current definition falls under the jurisdiction of the NFA.
I did not research it deeply but it seems the only point everybody brings up is lack of serial numbers thus being unable to "trace" the weapon. And I don't think that is required.

But live it up and prove me wrong.




__





Rules and Regulations Library | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives







www.atf.gov


----------



## backcountry

I don't know anything about the subject. It's a niche well outside my store bought firearms experience, hence sincerely asking. I've just seen the order and political claims.


----------



## Critter

My question is that without having to register your firearm why do you need a serial number other than being able to track it back to the manufacture and then the dealer who sold it? 

As to the dealer who sold it what happens to when they go out of business and the feds have no access to the dealers ATF 4473 form? I know that dealers need to maintain those in their records for 20 years so is there any record of any firearm purchased before then? 

So lets say that I purchased a AR-15 back in 2000, is there any record that I now own it since it has been over 20 years?


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> Out of all the potential weapons we can own (excluding class 3), IMO a semi-auto 12GA shotgun is by far the most lethal and dangerous. A 12GA loaded up with #4 Buckshot can do a helluva lot more damage, quicker than a AR15 of any type.
> 
> -DallanC


Not true. The most lethal weapon in mass shootings are semiautomatics, long gun or handgun, that accept detachable magazines. There aren't many semiauto 12 gauge shotguns that do so.


#1DEER 1-I said:


> This is true. It’s why I think some sort of further regulation for all semi-automatic weapons making the process a little deeper would be okay. I’m not for banning any of them. If everyone could come to the table in good faith some decent legislation on specific guns could be addressed that kept them available and also harder to get. The problem is one side says “they’re coming for your guns” the other side has its fringes that do want some guns banned, and nothing ends up being done at all. Democrats have a very slight majority in congress. There are Democrats I very much expect will oppose most gun legislation and would not pass bans. Even among a lot of Democrats major gun legislation is not popular. People like AOC are the loudest part of the party, they’re not the majority of the party. The truth is it’s simply a political football that gets ran down the field by both sides and neither are all that serious either way in regards to it aside from political gain. I expect little things around the edges to say “hey we kept our promise we did something” when it really won’t do anything.


Many years ago, I came up with a plan that I think would reduce mass shootings. I wrote this after the Sandy Hook tragedy. Many hunters I have spoken with have been supportive.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Funny, and true, all at the same time:


----------



## dubob

backcountry said:


> And it's obvious you know your claims are bunk given the actual treaty is inconsistent with your previous quotes specific allegations (ie Article II). You pivoted real fast when that was fact checked.


Hardly! The document is 12 pages of meaningless bovine excrement. There are numerous links and references from one article to one or more other articles throughout the document. Several contradictions and inconsistencies exist throughout that support the the analysis already put forth by groups such as the NRA, GOA, Ammoland, etc. You have already said they are not valid, so what would be my incentive to waste my time explaining the truth to you when your attitude is this:


----------



## Critter

paddler said:


> Not true. The most lethal weapon in mass shootings are semiautomatics, long gun or handgun, that accept detachable magazines. There aren't many semiauto 12 gauge shotguns that do so.
> 
> 
> Many years ago, I came up with a plan that I think would reduce mass shootings. I wrote this after the Sandy Hook tragedy. Many hunters I have spoken with have been supportive.


The problem that I see with your solution is that just how many of these shooting have taken place where the shooter really needed a semi automatic weapon with a 1000 round magazine? 

There hasn't been one that they couldn't of done the same thing with a bolt action rifle. Not one of the instances happened where there was a person that was capable of fighting back with their own weapon. Just like this last shooting in Boulder the shooter put down his rifle and surrendered once the police showed up in force with more firepower than he had. Other than that he could of just uses a bolt action rifle loading a couple of rounds after he had shot a couple of rounds. 

Even the shooter down in Vegas might of done more damage with a bolt action rifle and a scope instead of doing the spray and pray method. But we will never know.

I believe that Dallans point was that a semi automatic shotgun shooting double OO buck would be more lethal than the spray and pray method that happens. He never did say that anyone had used one. Also with a half hour of practice I can load my semi automatic or pump shotgun quite fast, even with them only holding either 3 or 5 rounds to start with. But with unarmed children or inside of a grocery store you could take your time since everyone else in the area are going to be in panic mode.


----------



## backcountry

dubob said:


> Hardly! The document is 12 pages of meaningless bovine excrement. There are numerous links and references from one article to one or more other articles throughout the document. Several contradictions and inconsistencies exist throughout that support the the analysis already put forth by groups such as the NRA, GOA, Ammoland, etc. You have already said they are not valid, so what would be my incentive to waste my time explaining the truth to you when your attitude is this:


To be accurate, I fact checked a claim that was completely false and then deemed the claim invalid. I laid out evidence to support that conclusion as there is no such provision in Article II. That is a undeniable fact.

My attitude is I dislike misinformation and fear mongering and attack such propaganda with vigor.

The other fact is I haven't shown support or disfavor for the treaty. I do however believe firmly that when dealing with issues of such import it is the job of informed citizenry to filter out all the noise (innuendo and rumor like you posted) and look at the easily verified facts. Your posts fail that simple standard in this thread.

That doesn't mean I even disagree with the ultimate preference to stop our legislature from signing such treaties. I don't. I'm pretty **** neutral about our relationship with the UN and committing to such things. However, I'm saddened to see conservatism focus on fear mongering and misinformation instead of starting from a principled stance and using available facts to support that position. It's a bastardization of ideals and positions that I unfortunately bought into just before they were so publicly corrupted. It doesn't have to be that way. The conservatism I was taught is strong because it cares about facts.

Same goes for the Executive Orders, except I have publicly expressed criticism of that growing form of executive imperialism. I'm not convinced the EOs will have meaningful impact (or survive judicial scrutiny) but neither do I see evidence to support the fear mongering on the modern right. The tribalism of modern team sports wants us to believe we have to take strong, often outrageous stands on all these things which often creates a narrative reverse engineered to justify the vitriol. The left does it publicly with it's narratives about mass shootings as much as the right does it with the notion that every form of legislation on arms is about the gubment cabal seeking to undermine our basic liberties. Neither side really seems to want to offer up good faith arguments and support, hence the decades long stalemate.

So no, I don't buy the garbage concept you are trying to sell me about the ATT because when fact checked it doesn't begin to be substantiated to the level of the claims you are lobbing. It's junk politics. I will very much listen to reasoned, supported arguments against gun control. I'm increasingly leaning against most forms of gun control until we better enforce current ones but I can tell you as a household impacted by the threats of mass shootingS that it's getting more tenuous to hold that position. Heck, to my liberal friends frustration I regularly cite Heller as a ruling that contradicts their goals. But it's also tougher to hold the position that quality legislation should be self-justifying when the party traditionally protecting us from government infringement isn't even trying to offer thoughtful counter-arguments and legislation that bulwarks against the excesses of the left.

TLDR: support your claims with facts and I'll listen. Try to sell me garbage and I I'll toss it in the dumpster.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> The problem that I see with your solution is that just how many of these shooting have taken place where the shooter really needed a semi automatic weapon with a 1000 round magazine?
> 
> There hasn't been one that they couldn't of done the same thing with a bolt action rifle. Not one of the instances happened where there was a person that was capable of fighting back with their own weapon. Just like this last shooting in Boulder the shooter put down his rifle and surrendered once the police showed up in force with more firepower than he had. Other than that he could of just uses a bolt action rifle loading a couple of rounds after he had shot a couple of rounds.
> 
> Even the shooter down in Vegas might of done more damage with a bolt action rifle and a scope instead of doing the spray and pray method. But we will never know.
> 
> I believe that Dallans point was that a semi automatic shotgun shooting double OO buck would be more lethal than the spray and pray method that happens. He never did say that anyone had used one. Also with a half hour of practice I can load my semi automatic or pump shotgun quite fast, even with them only holding either 3 or 5 rounds to start with. But with unarmed children or inside of a grocery store you could take your time since everyone else in the area are going to be in panic mode.


As a practical matter, virtually all mass shootings are carried out by disaffected/mentally ill males, mostly young males. And almost invariably, their weapon of choice is a semiautomatic gun, long or short, that fires centerfire ammo and accepts detachable magazines. It take very little practice to eject an empty magazine and insert another in a second or two. Now, in tests in the late 1800's and early 1900's, a skilled marksman could fire nearly 30 aimed shots with a Mauser using stripper clips. And, during the Vietnam War, Carlos Hath**** held off an entire Viet Cong company for three days with his bolt action. That's not the level of skill we're talking about here. We're talking about failures, who wish to make a name for themselves or go out in a blaze of glory. 

My solution is the most surgical way to make it harder for the people who carry out mass shootings to possess their most common weapon of choice without placing an undue burden on sportsmen. Note that all rimfires would be exempt, most semiautos would be as well, including shotguns typically used for sport. 

Now, if a guy really had to have an AR or similar, he could. He'd have to jump through a couple of hoops, , get a letter from his LEO that he's not a kook, and pay the $200 fee, but he could own it. I have one gun that would be subject to the reclassification, a Beretta 92F. I've owned it for many years and it remains unfired so I'd probably sell it. Note that my plan wouldn't ban anything, not assault rifles, high capacity magazines, nothing. And it would apply to guns already in circulation, so nothing would be grandfathered.

IF anybody has a better solution, I'm listening.


----------



## Vanilla

I’ve mentioned this in the past, paddler, but the very gun at issue in Heller was a handgun that would meet your proposed definition, and the Supreme Court said the 2nd amendment protected the right of individuals to keep and bear that specific firearm in their home for self-defense. It’s not just about hunting and sportsmen, never was. 

So you’re idea is up against a specific Supreme Court decision. I don’t see it as viable.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla,

I have yet to see a major firearms control bill that would easily meet the "common use" test, have you? My friends on the left seem to want ignore that ruling. There are parts of the ruling I may dislike but ultimately that doesn't matter and legislation has to take those standards into consideration to be viable. 
I try not to be defeatist and I really wish we could thread the needle on this one.


----------



## Vanilla

Honestly, I don’t know. There will come a time where the court has to decide between “reasonable regulation” and “common use.” But the fact that you don’t see real legislation from the left on this topic, even when it is a major platform issue, is telling. It’s going to be hard to do and have it survive judicial scrutiny. 

The reason it is so hard to thread the needle here is because you’re dealing with a fundamental constitutional right. It’s not (thankfully, as it should not be) easy to put restrictions on individual constitutional rights, regardless of how you feel about it politically.


----------



## backcountry

Agree on your final point. I try to remain hopeful there is a legislative solution to this problem but ultimately there may not be one that passes the restraints of our constitution.

This is definitely one situation I also don't know what will happen.


----------



## paddler

I don't see anything in Heller that would prohibit the reclassification I proposed. Even if it did, stare decisis isn't really a thing if you ask the pro life crowd. ...............................................


----------



## Airborne

Come on paddler, straight to the ad hominem on poor 'Niller!--I expect more from a sophisticate!


----------



## paddler

Airborne said:


> Come on paddler, straight to the ad hominem on poor 'Niller!--I expect more from a sophisticate!


That was a joke, a takeoff of Al Franken's interview on Colbert. Watch at 1:55. Hilarious:






Here's another on Ted Cruz:


----------



## wyogoob

OK, banning certain firearms is an important issue to our UWN community. Please keep your comments related to that issue, not comments that are solely political.

And it goes without saying - no personal attacks.

Good grief.


----------



## wyogoob

OK, the Supreme Court Heller case, 2008, held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some fashion of gun control in America. Geeze, no one wants to sit on an airplane next to a guy carrying an Uzi. Although when the Boogeyman comes after you it's not good to be out-gunned.


----------



## DallanC

I interpret the 2nd amendment as to what it literally states. "... keep and bear arms". I'm ok with requirements on purchasing a weapon (background checks, class III license hehehe), but once you own it, your right is to to keep and use it.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler

wyogoob said:


> OK, the Supreme Court Heller case, 2008, held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some fashion of gun control in America. Geeze, no one wants to sit on an airplane next to a guy carrying an Uzi. Although when the Boogeyman comes after you it's not good to be out-gunned.


Exactly. Heller doesn't prohibit reclassification of any type of firearm, and my plan would not ban anything. I wonder if it could be implemented by Executive Order. Might be a good test case. I tried to email Chipman at the Gifford Center but have not heard back. I wrote about this first in early 2013. It was published in the Trib a few years ago, and I've tried off and on to reach out to others without success. I even attended a Town Hall by Curtis a couple of years ago, stayed and talked to him about it afterwards. At his invitation, I emailed the details to him, but, of course, never heard back.

As I said above, this is the most elegant way to try to keep the weapons most often used by mass shooters out of the hands of those most likely to commit these acts. I have yet to have any sportsman respond negatively to this proposal. It's a helluva lot better than banning stuff.


----------



## dubob

For whatever reason, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) calls the member countries State Parties or State Party. For this discussion, I’ll simply use USA.

I’ll start with what the Preamble of the ATT says: “Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system, . . .” Okay, we’re our own boss with regards to regulation & control – for now.

Article 2 categorizes those arms covered under the ATT. Article 2. 1. (h) specifies ‘Small arms and light weapons.’ You know Rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Then, elsewhere in the ATT, Article 2 (1) is referenced 28 times. This sets the stage and spells out what arms are covered by other Articles. Are you with me so far? Try to keep up as there may be a quiz later on.

Fast forward to Article 12 – Record Keeping. In this Article the USA is ‘encouraged’ to keep records on Article 2 (1) arms to include (among many things), quantity, and end users, as appropriate. This would be us citizens. And if the records are kept, they shall be kept for a minimum of ten years. These types of records are considered by many in our society as ‘control lists.’ Hold that concept!

Next up is Article 13 – Reporting. In this article, the USA is required to report to the treaties Secretariat within the first year after entry into the ATT an initial report that includes ‘national control lists.’ AND, the Secretariat shall make available and distribute these reports to State Parties (other countries). Why do other State Parties NEED our control lists, if they exist?

On to Article 14 – Enforcement. “Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to enforce national laws and regulations that implement the provisions of this Treaty.” Do you know what those national laws/regulations might be? Me neither! I do know that under a dimwit controlled administration, they would NOT be favorable to us civilians with regard to our 2nd Amendment rights. 

Lets go back to Article 8 – Import. In this article, the USA is once again ‘required’ (pursuant to our national laws) to provide end user documentation (control lists?) to any export state Party. Why? What possible ‘good’ use would another country have for this type of information?

Couple all of above together with the current political climate in the USA, where the dimwit party platform strongly and clearly states their position on gun ownership. They plan to: 

Ban the manufacture and sale of "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines.
End online sales of guns and ammunition.
Ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue."
Enact universal background checks.
Expand the definition of who can lose their gun rights due to misdemeanor domestic violence charges.
Halt the safety valve that allows would-be gun buyers to receive a firearm after a background check has stalled out for more than three days.
Enact mandatory gun lock laws.
Push for states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms.
Push for more "red flag" gun seizure laws which have become increasingly popular in blue states.
Prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.
IF they get FULL control of the Federal Government and are successful at packing the SCOTUS, then they are empowered to make their platform the NEW law of the land. And if that happens, then the requirements set forth in the ATT are seen in a much different light. That is NOT fear mongering; it is simply facing the reality of what is possible under very plausible political outcomes.

You can believe what you want to about the impact of the ATT. I really don’t care. I know what I believe and why I believe it. I’m done with it on this forum going forward. You should be afraid of what the dimwits are trying to do politically; VERY afraid. There will be more EO’s coming with regard to 2A issues. I wouldn’t look to the SCOTUS to bail us out of any of it. They aren’t taking ANY 2A cases presently and I don’t think that will change under Chief Justice Roberts’ leadership. If the dimwits are ever successful in packing the court, then that will change almost overnight and not for the good of gun owners everywhere in this country.

Y’all have fun with this thread to your hearts content; I’m done here.


----------



## justismi28

I've now read this entire thread and am probably going to regret jumping in, but I am slightly shocked at the amount of fear and even hatred that has been written in this thread. This forum used to be one of discussion and open mindedness, but this thread shows anger, fear and belittling of other people.

The thing that seems to be missing most in life these days is empathy and understanding. As a human, I want to do whatever I can to preserve other human life. If there are tighter regulations that could make a difference and save a life, I can support it as long as there is solid logical reasoning behind the decision (not fear). I'll make it clear on the other side, I do not support any violation of American rights. I don't see tighter regulation as a violation, but if someone can present me to a logical argument as to why waiting 15 days vs 15 minutes to procure a semi automatic firearm is a violation I'd be willing to listen. 

I would like to offer some perspective to counter some of the anger and fear I've seen in this thread. Rather than left vs right, liberal vs conservative, I would encourage you to remember that behind those words on the screen is a human being. Each person has unique life experiences that have lead them to formulate their beliefs and ideologies. Rather than immediately dismiss the other point of view, try to find understanding and compromise. Have conversations with an open mind and be willing to concede points and evolve your opinion through logical facts. 

My two cents to the original topic\question, there is way to much money tied up in the gun control conversation for any sweeping changes\bans to ever take place. The gun control topic has been making members of the house and senate into millionaires for years. Why would they throw out the cow they get to milk when it's producing more than ever? Those lobby groups many of you support on either side of the argument, line the pockets of politicians to 'vote' in their favor. Why would they get rid of that sure income?


----------



## wyogoob

paddler said:


> Exactly. Heller doesn't prohibit reclassification of any type of firearm, and my plan would not ban anything. I wonder if it could be implemented by Executive Order. Might be a good test case. I tried to email Chipman at the Gifford Center but have not heard back. I wrote about this first in early 2013. It was published in the Trib a few years ago, and I've tried off and on to reach out to others without success. I even attended a Town Hall by Curtis a couple of years ago, stayed and talked to him about it afterwards. At his invitation, I emailed the details to him, but, of course, never heard back.
> 
> As I said above, this is the most elegant way to try to keep the weapons most often used by mass shooters out of the hands of those most likely to commit these acts. I have yet to have any sportsman respond negatively to this proposal. It's a helluva lot better than banning stuff.


From Wiki: 

Also the Supreme Court said in the Heller case that "the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated." 

It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.


----------



## backcountry

dubob said:


> That is NOT fear mongering; it is simply facing the reality of what is possible under very plausible political outcomes.
> 
> You can believe what you want to about the impact of the ATT. I really don’t care. I know what I believe and why I believe it. I’m done with it on this forum going forward. You should be afraid of what the dimwits are trying to do politically; VERY afraid.


To be fair again, if you aren't fear mongering than it's normally not best practice to say things like "you should be afraid...very afraid".

Your conclusion about feasibility of any and all of your outrageous allegations is that any treaty requires a supermajority that isn't impacted by senate rules like existence of the filibuster. That will never happen. On top of it, the treaty once again clearly establishes the supremacy of state sovereign law. Currently, if I understand correctly, it is illegal under federal law to maintain a list of citizen gun ownership. That could change but the chance of it being sustainable is unlikely.

Ipso Facto....the votes did not sell/give our second amendment rights to the UN. You may dislike the "dimwits" and fundamentally disagree with the treaty. That wasn't criticized. It was the bogus, exaggerated and unsupportable claims about the actual content of the Treaty that were rightfully fact checked. 

Other small details:

"State" is a common term in foreign policy, as in "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government". According to the UN, a "state party" is simply a state that consents to be bound by the treaty. Nothing unusual there.

A list of end users can be a critical part of any arms treaty that is trying to reduce the proliferation of terrorism. It's difficult to track illegal arms without an original chain of custody. It's one of the critical cookie crumbs in the process. And US citizens have been key players in channeling arms to such non-state mercenaries and terrorists. This is/was especially true for small arms making their way illegally to Mexico. "States" have a basic need to understand the legal channel of arms to better understand how/when/where they enter the illicit trade. It's not inherently a conspiracy against our rights for foreign governments to be interested in such information. 

But the thing about conspiracies like you are positing is they survive reason and empirical analysis because individuals don't require facts but a simple "what if". And those "what ifs" are largely driven by fear mongering like your posts about th ATT contain.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> To be fair again, if you aren't fear mongering than it's normally not best practice to say things like "you should be afraid...very afraid".
> 
> Your conclusion about feasibility of any and all of your outrageous allegations is that any treaty requires a supermajority that isn't impacted by senate rules like existence of the filibuster. That will never happen. On top of it, the treaty once again clearly establishes the supremacy of state sovereign law. Currently, if I understand correctly, it is illegal under federal law to maintain a list of citizen gun ownership. That could change but the chance of it being sustainable is unlikely.
> 
> Ipso Facto....the votes did not sell/give our second amendment rights to the UN. You may dislike the "dimwits" and fundamentally disagree with the treaty. That wasn't criticized. It was the bogus, exaggerated and unsupportable claims about the actual content of the Treaty that were rightfully fact checked.
> 
> Other small details:
> 
> "State" is a common term in foreign policy, as in "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government". According to the UN, a "state party" is simply a state that consents to be bound by the treaty. Nothing unusual there.
> 
> A list of end users can be a critical part of any arms treaty that is trying to reduce the proliferation of terrorism. It's difficult to track illegal arms without an original chain of custody. It's one of the critical cookie crumbs in the process. And US citizens have been key players in channeling arms to such non-state mercenaries and terrorists. This is/was especially true for small arms making their way illegally to Mexico. "States" have a basic need to understand the legal channel of arms to better understand how/when/where they enter the illicit trade. It's not inherently a conspiracy against our rights for foreign governments to be interested in such information.
> 
> But the thing about conspiracies like you are positing is they survive reason and empirical analysis because individuals don't require facts but a simple "what if". And those "what ifs" are largely driven by fear mongering like your posts about th ATT contain.


The impacts of the Treaty have been misrepresented by the Right for years. Those concerns have been routinely debunked but continue to resurface from time to time. As a result, these types of distortions and misinformation are sometimes called "Zombie" beliefs. You might enjoy Krugman's book, "Arguing With Zombies", if you haven't already read it. He mainly talks about economics, of course, but the principle is the same. It's probably worse with regards to gun control, as organizations like the NRA have been fear mongering for financial gain since the 1970s. I actually bought my first gun from the local NRA rep in a small town in northern California in about 1967. Given the takeover by hardliners 10 years later, I can no longer support the organization. La Pierre's missteps were just icing on the cake. Here's a history of the NRA:









The NRA Wasn't Always Against Gun Restrictions


Many are surprised to learn that the NRA of generations past worked with the federal government to limit the traffic in guns, for example where ex-convicts or mental patients were involved.




www.npr.org


----------



## Fowlmouth

Another **** school shooting. Multiple victims including a police officer. More fuel for the fire!


----------



## paddler

Yep, and another traffic stop that ended in the driver shot and killed.


----------



## Critter

So shall we start speculating on the weapon that the suspect had or should we wait for the facts to come out on what happened. 

As for the officer involved shooting, it appears that it was another case of someone refusing to do what the officer was telling them to do. They claim that the officer was pulling their taser to tase the suspect but pulled their firearm and pulled the trigger. For myself I will question all of this since the safety on both weapons is quite different, and how to you not realize that you have the wrong weapon in your hands? 

And while we are on the subjects, how about the military man who was stopped and then pepper sprayed? Watching what little of the body cam that has been released it appeared that he deserved it. He drove for a couple of minutes after having the lights lit up to pull into a service station and then instead of doing what the officers were telling him to do he just kept asking questions. For those who say that the officers should of known that he was military, you can go down to the local army/navy surplus store and purchase all the uniforms that you want so that should have zero basis on any decision.


----------



## middlefork

Is it really relevant as to what weapon was used in any incident? We don't know how many shots were fired. How many did the perpetrator use to wound the two SL County sheriffs? How many did they return to put him down? And how did he get the gun he used? 

It is pure and simple a people problem. I have yet to read any report that indicates that the gun went off by its self.

As for paddlers proposal my guess is if it has been submitted to that many people with no response either it is not reaching enough people who agree with it or there are problems with it. If there is no response then they must not agree with it.

It is people not guns that you need to figure out. Good luck.


----------



## Critter

The biggest problem that I see with paddlers proposal is what happens if it is enacted and then the shooters start using revolvers and bolt action rifles?

Do we put them onto the restricted or heavily taxed list?


Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## wyogoob

I have a number of semi-auto firearms.....some M1 carbines...even an M1 carbine in 256 Ferret. No one has done bad things with a 256 Ferret. 

Just sayin.


----------



## Critter

wyogoob said:


> I have a number of semi-auto firearms.....some M1 carbines...even an M1 carbine in 256 Ferret. No one has done bad things with a 256 Ferret.
> 
> Just sayin.


Just finding ammo for that rifle would be a feat in itself...


----------



## Critter

wyogoob said:


> I have a number of semi-auto firearms.....some M1 carbines...even an M1 carbine in 256 Ferret. No one has done bad things with a 256 Ferret.
> 
> Just sayin.


If I ever got to that part of Utah again I would find it a honor to to show up at your home and fondle some of the finer firearms that you have. There are a lot that I have just read about and dream about ever even seeing one much less being able to hold one.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> The biggest problem that I see with paddlers proposal is what happens if it is enacted and then the shooters start using revolvers and bolt action rifles?
> 
> Do we put them onto the restricted or heavily taxed list?
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


No. I think my proposal would dissuade most of these wannabes. But even if it didn't, having to use alternate weapons would at least reduce the amount of damage they could do. Only detachable magazines are high capacity, and only detachable magazines allow one to reload multiple rounds at one time. Only semiautos fire, eject the spent case and load a fresh round with each pull of the trigger. Do you think John Wick would choose a bolt action rifle? Would John McClane would use a S&W .38? Even with speed loaders?


----------



## Critter

You have to remember these people are going up against unarmed children and others who are also unarmed. Speed doesn't matter, neither does a semi automatic rifle or pistol. A 38 Special revolver with 4 or 5 speed loaders would be just as effective. How about a bolt action or a pump with a 5 round removable clip with 4 or 5 clips in their pocket?

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## wyogoob

Critter said:


> If I ever got to that part of Utah again I would find it a honor to to show up at your home and fondle some of the finer firearms that you have. There are a lot that I have just read about and dream about ever even seeing one much less being able to hold one.


That would be cool. We could even go out to the range and shoot some.


----------



## DallanC

Fowlmouth said:


> Another **** school shooting. Multiple victims including a police officer. More fuel for the fire!


It is not a school shooting. It is an officer involved incident that happened at a school. The poor kid shot at the officer and was killed in return.

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

Critter said:


> You have to remember these people are going up against unarmed children and others who are also unarmed. Speed doesn't matter, neither does a semi automatic rifle or pistol. A 38 Special revolver with 4 or 5 speed loaders would be just as effective. How about a bolt action or a pump with a 5 round removable clip with 4 or 5 clips in their pocket?
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


That's not consistent with data. Speed seems to matter to most of the individuals in active shooter events as they are normally over in roughly 5 minutes. That time is likely to decrease in schools as we continue to push traumatizing training like "run, hide, fight" in most schools. Not to mention better infrastructure at most schools that reduce time to inflict damage.

I can agree with the notion that these individuals COULD migrate to whatever the most lethal and legal platform remains after bans. It's definitely plausible. But from history, it's doubtful that will ever include revolvers or bolt action weapons.

Shotguns? Definitely. The Columbine shooters sought them out and adapted them intentionally. They are readily available, cheap, easy to use and effective. 

But these are often young men with minimal experience (not always, ie the Sandy Hook shooter who was trained by his mom). They aren't likely to seek our niche training on many of the whatabout options commonly thrown out. There is a reason they migrate to effecient arms that offer the possibility to increase success. I know from my wife's experiences that these young men often study case files about mass shooters and emulate those choices more than taking time to research guns long enough to look at niche options. They seek out notoriety and ease of execution. I hate being so blunt but it's a reality I have lived with for almost a decade.

While I think the whatabout approach is flawed I've yet to see a law that would stop school shootings. These events are both people problems and people with firearms, that are effecient at killing fellow humans, problems. If we don't couple the human dynamic alongside the gun control side then I don't hold out much hope. But as I've said, I don't know if there is a way to thread the needle constitutionally on the gun control side.


----------



## Critter

backcountry said:


> That's not consistent with data. Speed seems to matter to most of the individuals in active shooter events as they are normally over in roughly 5 minutes. I can agree with the notion that these individuals COULD migrate to whatever the most lethal and legal platform remains after bans. It's definitely plausible. But from history, it's doubtful that will ever include revolvers or bolt action weapons.
> 
> Shotguns? Definitely. The Columbine shooters sought them out and adapted them intentionally. They are readily available, cheap, easy to use and effective.


If you ban or make something next to impossible or very expensive to get they will migrate to the next choice down the line. 

AR platform rifles have been a big choice just for the simple reason that they have magazines that hold a lot of rounds and they are a semi automatic. 

As I mentioned before, the shooter down in Vegas could of done a lot more damage with a scoped bolt action rifle instead of doing his spray and pray that he hit something. The one in Sandy Hook picked on children, as gruesome as it sounds he could of used a baseball bat. 

And while we are here, the legislature of Colorado passed another feel good law on guns. Once the Governor signs the bill all firearms will need to be stored under lock and key. Is this going to stop anyone? I highly doubt it. That along with the law that they passed where a firearm owner now had 5 days to report to the police if his firearm is stolen. Will that stop anything? Again I doubt it. 

Not one bill has been introduced to deal with the mental instability of these people. They look at the tool and not the person as the problem


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> That's not consistent with data. Speed seems to matter to most of the individuals in active shooter events as they are normally over in roughly 5 minutes. That time is likely to decrease in schools as we continue to push traumatizing training like "run, hide, fight" in most schools. Not to mention better infrastructure at most schools that reduce time to inflict damage.
> 
> I can agree with the notion that these individuals COULD migrate to whatever the most lethal and legal platform remains after bans. It's definitely plausible. But from history, it's doubtful that will ever include revolvers or bolt action weapons.
> 
> Shotguns? Definitely. The Columbine shooters sought them out and adapted them intentionally. They are readily available, cheap, easy to use and effective.
> 
> But these are often young men with minimal experience (not always, ie the Sandy Hook shooter who was trained by his mom). They aren't likely to seek our niche training on many of the whatabout options commonly thrown out. There is a reason they migrate to effecient arms that offer the possibility to increase success. I know from my wife's experiences that these young men often study case files about mass shooters and emulate those choices more than taking time to research guns long enough to look at niche options. They seek out notoriety and ease of execution. I hate being so blunt but it's a reality I have lived with for almost a decade.
> 
> At Sandy Hook, the shooter could have used less lethal means, But the fact that he chose semiautomatics with detachable clips certainly made it easier to kill those 26 people. I'm sure that a Louisville slugger would have resulted in fewer lives lost. Whataboutisms are very weak arguments.
> 
> While I think the whatabout approach is flawed I've yet to see a law that would stop school shootings. These events are both people problems and people with firearms, that are effecient at killing fellow humans, problems. If we don't couple the human dynamic alongside the gun control side then I don't hold out much hope. But as I've said, I don't know if there is a way to thread the needle constitutionally on the gun control side.


Exactly. Without a deranged/disaffected, typically young male, these shootings would likely not occur. If said shooter didn't have access to the weapons typically used, these shootings would likely not occur.

If one looks at it this way, the obvious solution is to prevent these potential shooters from obtaining the weapons typically used. How do you do that in the most limited way possible, ie, without unduly burdening law-abiding gun owners, hunters, target shooters, etc? I developed my proposal with all these factors in mind. You want to own an AR? Fine. Just pass a background check, get fingerprinted, get a letter from your local LEO, guaranty safe storage and pay the $200 fee. PITA? Yep. Will it decrease the likelihood of some punk shooting up a school, church, theater? No guarantee, of course, but I think it's better than any ban or doing nothing. Then study it for efficacy, and act on those results. Continuous quality improvement.

Critter, you've made statements that lack support. For instance, in Las Vegas the shooter had the advantage of firing from an elevated position into a crowd. Initially, multiple targets in close proximity to each other. Accuracy was secondary to firepower. Once the crowd recognized what was happening, they started to run, which would have made aimed shots very difficult. I disagree that under those circumstances a bolt gun would be more lethal than the weapons actually used.

At Sandy Hook, the killer could have used less lethal weapons. But I'm guessing that using a Louisville Slugger rather than semiautomatics with detachable magazines would have resulted in fewer lives lost. Whataboutisms are by nature weak arguments. 

And, my proposal is the only one that actually addresses the issue of mental health. Indirectly, of course, but more efficient than any other approach.


----------



## Brettski7

Critter said:


> So shall we start speculating on the weapon that the suspect had or should we wait for the facts to come out on what happened.
> 
> As for the officer involved shooting, it appears that it was another case of someone refusing to do what the officer was telling them to do. They claim that the officer was pulling their taser to tase the suspect but pulled their firearm and pulled the trigger. For myself I will question all of this since the safety on both weapons is quite different, and how to you not realize that you have the wrong weapon in your hands?
> 
> And while we are on the subjects, how about the military man who was stopped and then pepper sprayed? Watching what little of the body cam that has been released it appeared that he deserved it. He drove for a couple of minutes after having the lights lit up to pull into a service station and then instead of doing what the officers were telling him to do he just kept asking questions. For those who say that the officers should of known that he was military, you can go down to the local army/navy surplus store and purchase all the uniforms that you want so that should have zero basis on any decision.


Being military makes no difference anyways. Doesn’t give him a pass automatically. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brettski7

paddler said:


> No. I think my proposal would dissuade most of these wannabes. But even if it didn't, having to use alternate weapons would at least reduce the amount of damage they could do. Only detachable magazines are high capacity, and only detachable magazines allow one to reload multiple rounds at one time. Only semiautos fire, eject the spent case and load a fresh round with each pull of the trigger. Do you think John Wick would choose a bolt action rifle? Would John McClane would use a S&W .38? Even with speed loaders?


He chose a pump shotgun and did major damage. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry

Critter,

I'll be more blunt. These shooters tend to be lazy. As you stated, they seek out weapons that require the least amount of effort. Yes, they could utilize less sophisticated weapons and possibly be more deadly but they don't. And the rise in mass shootings is correlated with decades of relatively easy access to these weapons.

There is a possibility some of the more motivated shooters could migrate to other weapons. I agree. I think from evidence I've seen most won't, because again, they are lazy. There is also the aspect of the fear associated with these tactical looking weapons the men rely upon for impact and notoriety. 

I think the what if line of reasoning gets us nowhere though. Ultimately those protecting these weapons for legal use have plenty to stand on constitutionally with other arguments that carry more substance. And those arguments often are more conducive to moderates. We could debate forever what types of weapons shooters might use in the future but we know what they use now. But we also know those weapons are used legally for constitutionally protected purposes. That's been the only line of reasoning that I've succeeded at getting those in favor of gun control aimed at assault weapons to even be remotely skeptical. There isn't certainty that the supreme court will rule in favor of protecting these assault weapons, and their many accessories, but despite stereotypes a fair number of left-leaning citizens do care about balance and liberties. 

The other line of reasoning that is accurate and works is mass shooters do intentionally use semi-automatic pistols and various shotguns. And we all know semi-automatic pistols are extremely common in gun violence in general. Pointing out their role in gun violence isn't a what if but an empirical fact. But those weapons are even less likely to be successfully and sustainably banned given their prevalance in society and role in supreme court rulings. 

Ultimately society has to decide not only what level of gun violence is tolerable in our constitutional republic but also what measurable effect gun control laws should have when enacted. Few, if any, laws eliminate all the crime they target but with laws dealing that will infringe on explicit liberties it's fair to expect a high standard. I'm currently unconvinced that's possible, despite my desire for change.


----------



## Critter

Ok, lets put it another way. 

Lets ban all semi automatic weapons, and all removable magazines. 

What then do you want to ban when the next shooting occurs, and yes it will happen.


----------



## backcountry

I should point out I've said multiple times that I agree it's a possibility shooters will choose other weapons that remain legal. I disagree it will be as common. I've seen the evidence from my wife that these young men are fascinated with the tactical look and emulating the mass murderers of years past that have killed so many. I am very skeptical that they'll suddenly jump to using revolvers and bolt action weapons. So...

"What if" we address that IF it happens. Neither of us know IF it will happen remotely in the quantities we see with these other weapons. The problem right now isn't a single shooting but a pattern of them that has plagued us for decades. So let's address the reality of what is happening.

If we used your approach then we'd never try to solve most problems because sadly some people always find ways to skirt the law. But good laws do have a way of reducing, not eliminating, crime. And in this case I believe wanting to reduce the number of mass shootings, especially in schools, is a worthy goal to discuss in good faith. I for one firmly believe traumatizing generations of school children with active shooter drills isn't an appropriate long term choice.

Like I also said before, I simply don't know how we do so. But I do know that if "both sides" can't even agree to get out of their rhetorical fox holes then how do we ever move forward. I for one am tired of this Groundhog Day scenario and believe it's pathetic that the US is stuck playing Bill Murray in that 90s movie. And it's not just politicians making that a reality.

PS...I don't believe we can or should ban all semi-automatic weapons and accessories. Nor am I sure we can or should ban assault weapons.


----------



## backcountry

Critter,

Also of note, the firearm storage bills actually deal with mental health issues. Most suicides are impulsive acts. There is growing evidence that simple solutions like locked firearm storage can reduce teenage suicide and unintended firearm discharge, which are often deadly. Once again, they aren't simply "feel good" laws but ones with an increasing (yet nascent) body of scientific evidence to support them. 

Should we force gun owners to lock up firearms? That's a different question. I personally believe guns in homes with kids old enough to handle them should be locked up. But I'm more inclined to see a public service campaign than law. Its why I wish we had a gun owners organization that was solely focused on safety to help in this matter. 

Data shows we are more likely to be harmed or killed by the guns in our homes than those of criminals. I know that and still have a home defense weapon. It was stored in a locker when my MIL with dementia lived here, even though she probably wasn't physically capable of handling it. I'll do the same when my daughter is old enough. Its a simple solution and there is plenty of tech now that allows you to secure weapon yet keep it readily available for home defense. Its one that seems like a no brainer to me.

Last data I saw was 1100 youth suicides by firearm a year. If we could put a noticeable dent in that by such a simple solution, why wouldn't we?


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> Ok, lets put it another way.
> 
> Lets ban all semi automatic weapons, and all removable magazines.
> 
> What then do you want to ban when the next shooting occurs, and yes it will happen.


Again, there is no need to ban anything. All you need to do is thoroughly screen those who desire to own those weapons typically used in mass shootings. Above you mentioned mental health, which the right always does after each event. It's a dodge, of course, because it's impossible to screen our entire population for risk factors or behavioral patterns that would predict those who would perpetrate these crimes. Simply screening those who want to purchase these weapons for any indication they are a risk to society is enough. Foolproof? No, nothing is. But if during an interview with a local LEO that some 22 year old has delusions, hears voices, etc, well, maybe they should own an AR.

I think all responsible gun owners should be very concerned about all forms of gun violence and try to be part of the solution. Saying nothing can be done, taking the "from my cold, dead hands" approach, deflecting by say guns don't kill people, people do, is false, of course, because the guns are their instruments of destruction, all simply guarantee the events will continue unabated, and we'll hear "thoughts and prayers" for the foreseeable future, and ensures those who take these approaches are part of the problem.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> Again, there is no need to ban anything. All you need to do is thoroughly screen those who desire to own those weapons typically used in mass shootings. Above you mentioned mental health, which the right always does after each event. It's a dodge, of course, because it's impossible to screen our entire population for risk factors or behavioral patterns that would predict those who would perpetrate these crimes. Simply screening those who want to purchase these weapons for any indication they are a risk to society is enough. Foolproof? No, nothing is. But if during an interview with a local LEO that some 22 year old has delusions, hears voices, etc, well, maybe they should own an AR.


And what of any of that would have prevented Sandy Hook where the lawful gun owner was killed and the gun taken?

Maybe we need mental health evaluations for neighbors of legal gun owners, you know, just in case they possibly might be thinking of stealing a firearm and committing a crime. /eyeroll

-DallanC


----------



## bowgy

In the past decade, there have been 80 mass shootings, 20 of those used an AR15 rifle, one used an AR15 pistol. In those 80 mass shootings 467 people were killed.

They estimate somewhere between 5 million to 10 million AR15's are owned in America with over one million sold per year.

There were almost 287 million vehicles registered in the US last year. More than 38,000 people are killed in auto accidents every year with another 4.4 million seriously injured.

Just some things to think about, not trying to compare them, just that there are costs living in a free society.


----------



## bowgy

The Sandy Hook shooting was mentioned. The shooter left a shotgun in his car but took an AR15 rifle with multiple mags and 2 pistols, a 10mm and a 9mm, both capable of holding 16 rounds each.

In that situation where he had non combatant soft targets he could have done the same amount of damage in the same amount of time with the pistols as he did with the rifle.


----------



## paddler

Don't know how many of you watched Ken Burns' documentary on Hemingway, but there was a classic case of severe depression and high risk of suicide. Elderly male, even though he was only 61, history of depression treated


bowgy said:


> The Sandy Hook shooting was mentioned. The shooter left a shotgun in his car but took an AR15 rifle with multiple mags and 2 pistols, a 10mm and a 9mm, both capable of holding 16 rounds each.
> 
> In that situation where he had non combatant soft targets he could have done the same amount of damage in the same amount of time with the pistols as he did with the rifle.


Yes, that's why my proposal would include handguns.


----------



## DallanC

Revolver with reload.






-DallanC


----------



## Critter

DallanC said:


> Revolver with reload.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


And while it doesn't show it, all the shots were on target.


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> And what of any of that would have prevented Sandy Hook where the lawful gun owner was killed and the gun taken?
> 
> Maybe we need mental health evaluations for neighbors of legal gun owners, you know, just in case they possibly might be thinking of stealing a firearm and committing a crime. /eyeroll
> 
> -DallanC


Couple of things about Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza was clearly mentally ill, uncommunicative with the outside world, spent most his time playing World of Warcraft, and was obsessed with mass shootings, especially Columbine. Just a few red flags that would have been seen by a local LEO interview at the home with his mom. "Anybody else live with you?" "Yes, but he never comes out of his room. He's playing World of Warcraft and studying Columbine." "Oh, that sounds like a problem. Do you have a gun safe?" "Yes." "Can your son access those guns?" "He knows the combination."

These events do not occur in a vacuum. In retrospect, most are predictable. Don't know how many of you saw Ken Burns' documentary on Hemingway, but it was very interesting. Here was a case of lifelong depressive self medicating with alcohol, treated twice at the Mayo clinic with ECT. His guns were locked in the basement, but his wife thought he deserved access to them so left the keys on the kitchen counter. She was awakened the next morning by a loud noise.

Root cause analysis should lead to rational decisions and solutions, making excuses is an abdication of our responsibilities as gun owners.


----------



## paddler

Dallan, Critter, Miculek's skills are irrelevant to this discussion, as backcountry has shown at least twice. Deny, divert, thoughts and prayers don't mean squat.


----------



## backcountry

Bowgy,

The issue of shotguns and semi-automatic handgun selection by these young men is all to often glossed over by gun control advocates. It's a vulnerability to any certainty of legislation.

That said, these young my still often go for these tactical looking rifles for a reason that is hard to ignore. It's ignored in this thread but "spray and pray" works well in crowds running from you. Likely more so than handguns that work better with aim and closer targets (shotguns offer similar benefit ad ARs in my opinion, which is why the Columbine shooters probably chose them). We also ignore the intentional fear factor these weapons impose on the victims and survivors. 

Per the car analogy...they aren't apples to apples but let's run with it. When I get into a car I recognize the dangers of the machine and recognize other drivers could make mistakes with theirs. It's an inherent risk of driving. And we have developed relatively non-intrusive means to protect us from such accidents. 

That's not the case with mass shootings. It's not an inherent risk of going to school (or movie theaters, Walmy, etc) that my wife might get shot. It's become a subjective hazard in the US but we can address that before we accept it the way we do car accidents as it's not a natural variable of those experiences/environments. 

The big difference is firearms are designed to inflict harm. Cars aren't. And to be equally fair, driving cars is currently a privilege while firearm ownership isn't. Those differences exacerbate the issue. 

I also agree that living in a free country comes with risks. The first amendment means I'm bound to run into speech I find hateful or even dangerous. The second amendment means citizens can own inherently dangerous weapons. But as has also been stated rights aren't absolute and therefore neither are the risks. Expecting citizens to just accept the mass violence of these young men because we live in a free society is more than a tough pill to swallow. I personally think it's untenable. I say that as a gun owning citizen as well as a husband to a woman directly threatened by these young men multiple times.

I may not know the solution but I'm unwilling to just accept this is as normal.


----------



## Critter

As I said and two of you are ignoring. 

Ban or make the AR type of rifle and semi automatic handguns harder to get and they will move on to other means to accomplish what they plan on doing. 

As for suicides, I know a number of young men who have killed themselves and most have used a shotgun. Not a handgun, not a rifle but a shot gun. One used a bow and arrow. Others have used pills. Where there is a will to do it it will be done. 

Lets not forget that the most lives that were lost were because of box cutters. Some of the most destruction was done with diesel and ammonia nitrate. Boston was carried out with $20 pressure cookers.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> As I said and two of you are ignoring.
> 
> Ban or make the AR type of rifle and semi automatic handguns harder to get and they will move on to other means to accomplish what they plan on doing.
> 
> As for suicides, I know a number of young men who have killed themselves and most have used a shotgun. Not a handgun, not a rifle but a shot gun. One used a bow and arrow. Others have used pills. Where there is a will to do it it will be done.
> 
> Lets not forget that the most lives that were lost were because of box cutters. Some of the most destruction was done with diesel and ammonia nitrate. Boston was carried out with $20 pressure cookers.


The issue is mass shootings, another of which prompted this thread. Not pressure cookers, not suicides or other types of gun violence, not Oklahoma City, not 911. You persist in attempts to divert the conversation. Why? We all know that mass shootings comprise a small percentage of lives lost due to gun violence, that is not the question. The question posed was what types of bans can we expect as a result of the latest mass shooting. Not IEDs, or pills, or anything else. Do you have any constructive ideas on how to reduce or prevent mass shootings? Anything at all?


----------



## bowgy

Like I said, I wasn't trying to compare vehicle deaths with gun deaths, just a couple of things that happen in a free society.

I also don't feel that we have to accept these killings as a part of society but the fact is they are.

There isn't any gun law that has been presented that will change this. I also feel that it is the mental state of the person not the tool.

I agree that the AR platform is a very proficient tool. 

Mossberg makes one of their 22 LR rifles in an AR platform and it is no different than my marlin except the marlin holds half again as many rounds.

One of the early mass shootings was done with a 9mm Luger where he killed 13 people in 1949. All I was thinking was that is has been going on for a long time and curtailing the details of a firearm is not going to change it.

The Texas University tower shooter used a variety, (Bolt action rifle, semi auto carbine, revolver, semi auto pistols and a pump shotgun.

If a person wants to commit this type of atrocity they will find a way.


----------



## Critter

paddler said:


> The issue is mass shootings, another of which prompted this thread. Not pressure cookers, not suicides or other types of gun violence, not Oklahoma City, not 911. You persist in attempts to divert the conversation. Why? We all know that mass shootings comprise a small percentage of lives lost due to gun violence, that is not the question. The question posed was what types of bans can we expect as a result of the latest mass shooting. Not IEDs, or pills, or anything else. Do you have any constructive ideas on how to reduce or prevent mass shootings? Anything at all?


All that I am saying is that once you ban one thing something else will takes its place. 

A firearm is no more than a tool. If you want to look at preventing these type of things then look at the mental health side of it. Just about all of these shooters were on some kind of a watch list or their family knew that something was going on but they all refused to do anything about it. How many times will the FBI come out and say that they had warnings that something was going to happen but refused to act along with the local and or state police agency's. 

But then if some of the members of congress that lean to the left side of left have it their way we won't be able to blame any of the law enforcement agency's in the future since they was to do away with all of them.


----------



## JerryH

Critter

So lets say you were in Vegas at the concert when that mass shooting happened. Would you of liked your odds better of surviving if the shooter had a bolt action rifle. Or if he had an assault rifle with high capacity mags sprayin & prayin in your direction?? 

Be honest.


----------



## bowgy

JerryH said:


> Critter
> 
> So lets say you were in Vegas at the concert when that mass shooting happened. Would you of liked your odds better of surviving if the shooter had a bolt action rifle. Or if he had an assault rifle with high capacity mags sprayin & prayin in your direction??
> 
> Be honest.


I don't want to answer for Critter, but my thoughts from the very beginning when this happened, in relation to my military experience in shooting the AR platform in both semi auto and full auto, he could of taken out more targets not using the bump stock which causes inaccuracy, however, since we do not know if his intent was as many targets as possible or maybe to create more terror in which case the bump stock or spray fire would cause more terror. IMHO


----------



## backcountry

Critter said:


> As I said and two of you are ignoring.
> 
> Ban or make the AR type of rifle and semi automatic handguns harder to get and they will move on to other means to accomplish what they plan on doing.
> 
> As for suicides, I know a number of young men who have killed themselves and most have used a shotgun. Not a handgun, not a rifle but a shot gun. One used a bow and arrow. Others have used pills. Where there is a will to do it it will be done.
> 
> Lets not forget that the most lives that were lost were because of box cutters. Some of the most destruction was done with diesel and ammonia nitrate. Boston was carried out with $20 pressure cookers.


No one is ignoring your point, Critter. It's been analyzed and criticized multiple times. You believe people will suddenly and consistently move onto lesser firearms that aren't banned. That is a guess and not a fact. It's a guess I am highly skeptical about because we can variables in these shootings in which such tools aren't as viable (hint: it's not about what expert hobby shooters consider better).

Yes, the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters. How many since? Yes, Boston used a pressure cooker. How common has that been? But those are traditional terrorism issues, not the mass shootings assault weapons bans are normally targeted at (in a way that is also untenable). And lest we forget, we utterly changed air travel because of them. We still take our shoes off because of one failed attempt by a complete loser.

The most recent suicide comment was about rapid access and lockers, not what types of weapons are used. We know non-assault weapons are used hence using targeted legislation. Let's not confuse the two issues. One is a critique of an inaccurate and rather callous dismissal like "feel good" legislation and another is a well known fact. You've wantonly dismissed laws with solid science and actual data to support successful impact as "feel good" or without impact/merit multiple times. Hence the criticism. Doesn't mean I agree with the laws but let's be fully honest in assessing cost and benefit and not play rhetorical games. The Colorado Red Flag law you dismissed has data based benefits. Locker laws have science to back up their introduction. Why can't people admit those readily available facts? We can admit such facts and disagree on the legislation.

I actually have a similar conclusions as Bowgy but not all of them or exactly the same, but I think we need to have better conversations than "what if" and deflections like you are using Critter. These situations are dire enough and deserve our commitment to asking the tough questions. That can mean admitting we don't know, it can mean admitting the constitutional hurdles that rightfully prevent legislation or admitting clear successes. If we want to work together we should be able to admit to honest, verifiable facts even when they are inconvenient to our preferences.

*I dare say "I don't know" may be the most accurate answer to these issues that are so complex and damning. As in, I don't know how we find solutions to problems that involve decades of hyperpartisan tension, constitutional liberties, and such deadly and random violence. But I do know these old rhetorical tricks aren't working, at all. And the partisan narratives are so blatantly failing us and that includes the either/or framing of the issue between people vs firearms: it's always been both.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> All that I am saying is that once you ban one thing something else will takes its place.
> 
> A firearm is no more than a tool. If you want to look at preventing these type of things then look at the mental health side of it. Just about all of these shooters were on some kind of a watch list or their family knew that something was going on but they all refused to do anything about it. How many times will the FBI come out and say that they had warnings that something was going to happen but refused to act along with the local and or state police agency's.
> 
> But then if some of the members of congress that lean to the left side of left have it their way we won't be able to blame any of the law enforcement agency's in the future since they was to do away with all of them.


So, are you saying that you have a specific idea that would help prevent mass shootings?


----------



## paddler

bowgy said:


> I don't want to answer for Critter, but my thoughts from the very beginning when this happened, in relation to my military experience in shooting the AR platform in both semi auto and full auto, he could of taken out more targets not using the bump stock which causes inaccuracy, however, since we do not know if his intent was as many targets as possible or maybe to create more terror in which case the bump stock or spray fire would cause more terror. IMHO


The question was AR vs bolt action. You didn't address it.


----------



## Critter

JerryH said:


> Critter
> 
> So lets say you were in Vegas at the concert when that mass shooting happened. Would you of liked your odds better of surviving if the shooter had a bolt action rifle. Or if he had an assault rifle with high capacity mags sprayin & prayin in your direction??
> 
> Be honest.


For survival in that instance I would hope that he is spraying his rounds all over the place. 

If you read or watched any of the stories about the survivors you will find a couple of big things in common. They would lay flat on the ground as he was shooting and get up and run when he wasn't. Then when the shooting started again they hit the ground and waited. They did this until they found cover. The shooter was shooting at what he saw move. A person with a scoped rifle would be picking his targets.


----------



## Critter

paddler said:


> So, are you saying that you have a specific idea that would help prevent mass shootings?


They are going to have to change some laws as far as holding and treating people that have a problem. Perhaps if they understood what they were or are thinking the medical field could come up with some answers. But as it stands now they will question them and release them. Even if they have a mandatory examinations in their agreement for release they very seldom show up to these examinations and nothing is done. 

While self accountability is nice there are those who you can not depend on being accountable for themselves.


----------



## backcountry

PS... I'm trying to use one social tool in this issue myself. I'm in favor of denying these perpetuators any notoriety and do my best to never use their name. Who knows if it works but I believe denying them name recognition removes one goal and success. I'm all in favor of prioritizing the names of the victims not the criminals.


----------



## backcountry

Critter,

That approach hits the same hurdles you criticize about red flag laws though. How do you honor due process yet deny liberties for crimes not yet committed? That is one of the biggest reasons individuals aren't arrested. It goes back to the risk of living in a free society.

That said, we already have involuntary commitment laws for mental health that are similar to red flags. And owning a firearm after being involuntarily committed is a tough journey. But due process requires traditional burden of proof after the temporary period expires which freedom loving advocates should understand in the name of consistency. Ironically, one could easily argue that individuals who own firearms that threaten harm to themselves or others should be treated equally to those with mental health disorders, ie justification for red flag laws. It's tough to justify one without the other door opening at the same time.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> All that I am saying is that once you ban one thing something else will takes its place.
> 
> A firearm is no more than a tool. If you want to look at preventing these type of things then look at the mental health side of it. *Just about all of these shooters were on some kind of a watch list or their family knew that something was going on but they all refused to do anything about it. How many times will the FBI come out and say that they had warnings that something was going to happen but refused to act along with the local and or state police agency's*.
> 
> But then if some of the members of congress that lean to the left side of left have it their way we won't be able to blame any of the law enforcement agency's in the future since they was to do away with all of them.


You're getting warmer. Most of the time there are clues that in retrospect are glaring. Looking at the mental health side is key. But how to do that? Do you screen our entire population of 330 million people to find the few who commit these atrocities? Is that an efficient use of our tax dollars? Hasn't worked thus far and there's no reason to expect it will. You seem to imply our law enforcement has been impotent in that regard? Why is that? Have we given them all the tools they need? Have we directed them to look closely at potential buyers to screen for those who may act out in this manner? Nope. We scrutinize very carefully those applying for Class 3 clearance, but semiautos are at least as lethal in attacking soft targets. Why not require the same scrutiny to those who wish to own these guns? It would even be budget neutral, as the $200 should cover the cost of the program. Your post is actually an argument in support of my proposal. Yikes!


----------



## JerryH

Better screening laws may not be a bad idea lol


----------



## Critter

backcountry said:


> Critter,
> 
> That approach hits the same hurdles you criticize about red flag laws though. How do you honor due process yet deny liberties for crimes not yet committed? That is one of the biggest reasons individuals aren't arrested. It goes back to the risk of living in a free society.


I don't think that you understood me on red flag laws. 

The laws are fine and I would support them but allow the person who is being flagged to have their court hearing in a matter of days and not months as it is now. 

Right now if they flag you for a statement and they come and take your firearms away you go onto the court scheduled. It might be this week, next week, or three or more months away before you can appear before a judge to plead you case.


----------



## bowgy

paddler said:


> The question was AR vs bolt action. You didn't address it.


What I was getting at was accuracy and possibly Critter was also in that you would be more accurate with a bolt action.

That being said I would think it would not be possible to throw down 1000 rounds in 10 minutes with a bolt action, which was the case with the bump stock.

That being said, he could have possibly killed more than 60 with a bolt action and many more with the AR without the bump stock in the 10 minutes that he was shooting depending upon his marksmanship. I have no idea what his training was, it was just my thoughts from my experience. But that is looking at it from a combat mindset. Who knows what was going on through this guys head.


----------



## Critter

paddler said:


> You're getting warmer. Most of the time there are clues that in retrospect are glaring. Looking at the mental health side is key. But how to do that? Do you screen our entire population of 330 million people to find the few who commit these atrocities? Is that an efficient use of our tax dollars? Hasn't worked thus far and there's no reason to expect it will. You seem to imply our law enforcement has been impotent in that regard? Why is that? Have we given them all the tools they need? Have we directed them to look closely at potential buyers to screen for those who may act out in this manner? Nope. We scrutinize very carefully those applying for Class 3 clearance, but semiautos are at least as lethal in attacking soft targets. Why not require the same scrutiny to those who wish to own these guns? It would even be budget neutral, as the $200 should cover the cost of the program. Your post is actually an argument in support of my proposal. Yikes!


I have no idea of how they can do it. I am not in the health field but I do know that if you remove one tool another one will takes its place.


----------



## backcountry

Critter said:


> I don't think that you understood me on red flag laws.
> 
> The laws are fine and I would support them but allow the person who is being flagged to have their court hearing in a matter of days and not months as it is now.
> 
> Right now if they flag you for a statement and they come and take your firearms away you go onto the court scheduled. It might be this week, next week, or three or more months away before you can appear before a judge to plead you case.


You understand by law the state is required to hold the hearings, both the follow-up hearing once the temporary ERPO is approved as well as the single hearing the affected can request, within 14 days, correct? If the state fails that standard the individual can sue. But the law as signed is very specific on those deadlines.






Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly







leg.colorado.gov







https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1177_signed.pdf



Now, maybe Colorado is able to modify that deadline under health emergencies. I don't know specifics for CO but I do know courts elsewhere have modified schedules during the pandemic.

If it's not that and the courts aren't scheduling hearings according to the law then the individuals are being wronged and should have recourse available. I think we are both in agreement that governments should follow their own laws.

The flaw in your claim though is the temporary ERPO expires after 14 days wether there is a hearing or not. The state and plaintiff have a compelling reason to follow through on the date if they want the ERPO to last a full year. The burden of proof is on the state/plaintiff at the follow-up hearing and the defendant has a right to representation.


----------



## Bax*

Taking a step back, it’s a big circular argument which is why no solutions seem in sight.

Arguments being posed here all contain some level of validity and some that may not hold water.

I personally believe they all link to addressing the symptoms and not the cause or prevention.

So unless the Rapture occurs, this argument won’t end.


----------



## DallanC

A base cause is a general lack of respect for life in general (stemming from lack of religion, violence in media etc etc). Another is a sinister / evil mentality to cause as much anguish as possible (hard to imagine anything more traumatic than loosing a child in a senseless act). 

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

Sadly, Bax, I think your summary is an accurate reflection of the current situation. I hope we can do better but our country seems fine with this unfortunate deadlock.


----------



## middlefork

And yet you have had no takers on your proposal. Why is that? Could it be there are already millions of semi automatic fire arms with detachable magazines in peoples hands already and they are not willing to go along with your tax plan?

If nothing else it is a really tough sell not to mention enforcement.


----------



## Bax*

backcountry said:


> Sadly, Bax, I think your summary is an accurate reflection of the current situation. I hope we can do better but our country seems fine with this unfortunate deadlock.


Agreed.

we can all agree that violence against anyone (in any form) is entirely unacceptable and abhorrent. We can especially agree that mass shootings earn a special place in hell for the shooter.

We just can’t agree on how to avoid it or stop it.

Unless we all have a sudden urge to kill the natural man and act peacefully in a utopian society, our nature of greed and superiority will further propagate harmful behavior.

We are the only species dead set on our own destruction


----------



## Bax*

DallanC said:


> A base cause is a general lack of respect for life in general (stemming from lack of religion, violence in media etc etc). Another is a sinister / evil mentality to cause as much anguish as possible (hard to imagine anything more traumatic than loosing a child in a senseless act).
> 
> -DallanC


Agreed. The decline and subjectivity of morality seems to be our Achilles Heel.


----------



## backcountry

As an agnostic I have to point out "religion" didn't exactly self-police it's own violent extremism recently. A fair number of Evangelicals were part of QAnon and they were happy to speculate (or volunteer to participate) about the assassination of anyone left of Gaetz. "The Storm" was to be a unique form of religious violence and retribution. That doesn't represent religion as a whole but neither does it and countless other acts of religious violence, just in America alone, bode well for Dallan's claim. (Flip side is there is also plenty of violence in secular circles).

Now if we take "religion" generously to mean any institution, including religions, that imbues it's community with a sense of moral purpose than I agree. We've lost too many institutions that bind "us" and it's showing in the few extremist being fueled by that relative isolation. I was actually just listening to a podcast with Bari Weis about that very issue.

But it also goes without saying that how you define "us" can unfortunately itself fuel the violence. I dare say some of America's extreme partisanship is or has turned into a sort of sectarianism that easily turns violent. The conspiracies and "othering" is clear in many of the manifestos.


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> And yet you have had no takers on your proposal. Why is that? Could it be there are already millions of semi automatic fire arms with detachable magazines in peoples hands already and they are not willing to go along with your tax plan?
> 
> If nothing else it is a really tough sell not to mention enforcement.


I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that policy makers who engage on the topic of gun control really have limited knowledge of guns, how they work, design features, capabilities, difference in functioning, etc. It seems the knee jerk response is to ban stuff, high capacity magazines, black, scary looking guns, etc. It took me a while to refine my proposal as it is fairly nuanced. Most legislators wouldn't even understand it, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be both more effective and less intrusive than other approaches. I've asked if anybody here has other ideas, or even perhaps refinements to my proposal. Man, those crickets are loud.


----------



## middlefork

I think the crickets are loud because no one has any ideas that could possibly be more effective and still not be intrusive. It is the problem with most proposals I have seen.

Your proposal is extremely intrusive to current owners of the effected firearms. Like I said tough sell.


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> I think the crickets are loud because no one has any ideas that could possibly be more effective and still not be intrusive. It is the problem with most proposals I have seen.
> 
> Your proposal is extremely intrusive to current owners of the effected firearms. Like I said tough sell.


Yep, it is. But if it saves lives, a bit of intrusiveness is worth it. Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Note that it isn't mandatory to sell it to current owners, just to policymakers and the general public.


----------



## middlefork

Does not the general public include current owners?

And not to be callous but the whole saving lives is being worked to death. We've seen that with all the other news.


----------



## backcountry

Ugh, turned off ignore to see his reply and can't believe he was so blunt about ignoring "current owners".

That seems like a great way to foster buy-in and reduce conspiracy theories.


----------



## backcountry

Middlefork,

Do you really not believe saving lives is justification in and of itself? Not that it over rides legal hurdles but that it's a rational and fair reason to develop legislation.


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> Does not the general public include current owners?
> 
> And not to be callous but the whole saving lives is being worked to death. We've seen that with all the other news.


Yeah, that whole "saving lives" stuff is so boring. I can see why you're over it. Callous? Not at all, why would you think that?

Almost every policy change benefits some groups and is detrimental to others. That's often unavoidable. That's where the "greater common good" concept comes in. There is no way to implement any form of gun control without some cost to current or future owners. These things are all a risk/reward calculation. In this case, is the cost of reclassifying semiautos worth the reward calculated as lives saved? I think the general public wants gun control, a poll in March showed 65% of Americans want tougher laws. When smoking was banned in public places, were smokers inconvenienced? Was the greater common good served?


----------



## middlefork

backcountry said:


> Middlefork,
> 
> Do you really not believe saving lives is justification in and of itself? Not that it over rides legal hurdles but that it's a rational and fair reason to develop legislation.


No I don't. Sorry.
What is the purpose of every feel good law in the land? To save lives. And while every life is important, all the laws in the world will not prevent death. There are evil people in the world whom will not be deterred by our conversations. They only know force.


----------



## middlefork

paddler said:


> Yeah, that whole "saving lives" stuff is so boring. I can see why you're over it. Callous? Not at all, why would you think that?
> 
> Almost every policy change benefits some groups and is detrimental to others. That's often unavoidable. That's where the "greater common good" concept comes in. There is no way to implement any form of gun control without some cost to current or future owners. These things are all a risk/reward calculation. In this case, is the cost of reclassifying semiautos worth the reward calculated as lives saved? I think the general public wants gun control, a poll in March showed 65% of Americans want tougher laws. When smoking was banned in public places, were smokers inconvenienced? Was the greater common good served?


Live it up! You are on the band wagon. Take your traveling minstrel show on the road and sell it to everybody. Good luck!

65% want tougher laws. The problems is what percentage agree with any proposal? Just don't don't be surprised when there is push back.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Bax* said:


> Taking a step back, it’s a big circular argument which is why no solutions seem in sight.
> 
> Arguments being posed here all contain some level of validity and some that may not hold water.
> 
> I personally believe they all link to addressing the symptoms and not the cause or prevention.
> 
> So unless the Rapture occurs, this argument won’t end.


Which is why I made one or two pointed comments, posted one funny video, and left. I have given up on discussing gun control with people on the left. Being honest, most people these days are left or right ideologues, myself included. You can talk tell your blue in your face, but at the end of the day, your not going to change anyone's mind. That is something they have to do themselves. I used to be on the left. When I got out of the military, I thought myself an expert by virtue of having been in the military. I was wrong. Nobody here would EVER believe the **** that came out of my mouth when it came to AR15's , 2A, and gun control. Over time, I changed my mind, I could write quite a bit about that, and it is one helluva rabbit hole.

I've argued this topic enough to have a txt file on my desktop I made 6 years ago or go. So here comes two canned comments, the first is a rewrite of the second:


> It is disheartening to see so many people, manipulated into forfeiting their natural right of self defense, for the illusion of safety.
> 
> Our founding fathers acknowledged our natural or god given right of self defense in the second amendment in our constitution. It was not given to us by government, it was already a pre-existing condition, they merely acknowledged it in the bill of rights.
> 
> They acknowledged it in writing for a reason - human nature. Human nature really hasn't changed much at all if you look at history. Sure, technology changes, and even societies can change (especially if you examine American society in the last 18-20 years). However, what hasn't changed, and what will probably never will change, is human nature and behavior.
> 
> It is the height of naivete, and even vanity, to think that the conditions for the need of the right of the people to keep and bear arms no longer exists, or, could never exist again. If these anti-gun groups are ever successful, they will start us down a dark path, from which there will be no return from, and our decedents will be made to pay the consequences of today's shortsightedness.
> 
> Guns exist, they always will. The question is, who will own them? Gun control is not about reducing deaths, it is always about consolidating power. The communist dictator, Mao Zedong, once said, "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun". A gun is a singularly self contained instrument of power. As in every case power can be misused. When a government, or group, seeks to consolidate power unto themselves, the misuse of that power is sure to occur. As the saying goes, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".
> 
> Knowing this, It is still far better to diffuse that power amongst "We the people" than to give it to a single authority. The greater good is not to give our freedoms to a single group to have them decide our fate and the fate of future generations.


...


> What is a gun? A gun is a singularly self contained instrument of power. As in every case power can be misused. When a government (or group) seeks to consolidate power unto itself (themselves) the misuse of that power is sure to occur. ("power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"). It is still far better to diffuse that power among the people than to give it to a single authority. The greater good is not to give our freedoms to a single group to have them decide our fate and the fate of future generations.
> 
> "Gun control" is not about reducing deaths it is always about consolidating power. The problem with consolidating power is that the misuse/abuse by armed governments has been shown to astronomically exceed the misuse/abuse done by armed individuals and small groups. Please look at history! Yes it is a sad fact of life that individual people kill other people but it pales in comparison to what armed governments do in a systematic application of unlimited power.
> 
> History is the ONLY indication of how governments will act. Resist all efforts to disarm the general population. James Madison, Writing in Federalist 46, explained that the Constitution hedges in “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”
> 
> Joseph Story, Associate Justice from 1811-1845, he wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” (Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.)
> 
> Representative Edwin Arthur Hall (R-NY) – In 1941 he reacted to calls for gun control in the U.S. Congress by pointing to the tyranny that had resulted from gun control in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka. (87 CONG.REC., 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 6778 [Aug. 5, 1941])


Later.


----------



## paddler

A poster above asked about current owners of the guns I have proposed be reclassified. I was criticized for being dismissive of their desires or concerns. Perhaps they missed the fact that I am a current owner of a gun that would be subject to reclassification, and so stated earlier in this thread. So, I'm not proposing something that would I am not willing to comply with myself. Further, I have spoken with a fair number of members of this forum, none have expressed reservations about the proposal, all were supportive. I realize that those on the far right are unreachable. Just remember this discussion when more intrusive gun laws are enacted. There may come a time when you see that reclassification was the lesser of two or more evils.


----------



## Critter

Didn't you also state that the firearm that you own is still in it's factory box unfired?


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Critter said:


> Didn't you also state that the firearm that you own is still in it's factory box unfired?


Not I.


----------



## justismi28

Lone_Hunter said:


> I have given up on discussing gun control with people on the left. Being honest, most people these days are left or right ideologues, myself included. You can talk tell your blue in your face, but at the end of the day, your not going to change anyone's mind.


I think this in itself is part the problem. You immediately form a unconscious prejudice towards 'people on the left' that doesn't enable honest and open discourse. Unconscious bias is part of human nature and our environmental circumstances. And when two parties recognize their biases they can have an honest and open dialogue willing to evolve. You briefly touched on your own journey showing this recognition of your biases and evolution. I hope that when you read my comment your immediate response isn't to feel attacked and form a prejudice against me. I hope you recognize I'm simply pointing out something I see as part of the problem and this was a good example. The them vs us mentality that is so prevalent these days.

We are conditioned through social media algorithms to think our beliefs are the *only *reality. Having them constantly reinforced through the various echo chambers social media has created and the news channels we support that we don't need to adopt the mindset of seeking to understand. This is true for all sides and parties. So when you have a conversation that makes you feel uncomfortable, it's easy to 'close off' and write the other perspective off as wrong and go back to what is comfortable. This forum is the only social media I have outside LinkedIn (if that even counts?), and one of the few areas that doesn't cater content to me. I hope we can keep the members from creating an echo chamber other than the 'hunting and guns are fun and good' that we currently have.

I'm not saying waste breath, but at least be open to the conversation and have civil discourse. Maybe nothing comes from it, but perhaps you help someone 'on the left' understand your perspective and vice versa. To my point earlier in this thread, the person behind that comment is a human being with their own life experiences that have lead to their beliefs. A little empathy can go a long way in these conversations.


----------



## Critter

Lone_Hunter said:


> Not I.


No it was for paddler


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> Didn't you also state that the firearm that you own is still in it's factory box unfired?


Yep, I did. Why do you care? I don't really have a use for it. Can't use it for ducks, grouse or chukar. It's cool, though, and the grandkids like it. I had a Winchester Model 70 Featherweight in 257 Roberts that I bought many years ago that I never could get to shoot. Did the trigger, glass bedded it, still terrible. Hated it. So I took it down to Scheels and traded it in on the Beretta 92F. Given current gun prices I'm ahead on the deal. Wanna buy it? I'll even throw in an unopened box of ammo.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

justismi28 said:


> I think this in itself is part the problem. You immediately form a unconscious prejudice towards 'people on the left' that doesn't enable honest and open discourse. ...


Cause I understand how they think , and that was before "wokeness" took over. Now the divide is worse. Wokeness is the real virus that's well on it's way to destroying this country.



> We are conditioned through social media algorithms to think our beliefs are the *only *reality.


If you mean facebook, twitter, linkin, etc, I've never used them. Mainly because I'm an old curmudgeon. I can recall the days of geocities and personal websites before social media became a thing. I'm also aware of things like "social engineering". You know I've a relative that has worked for the NY Times and LA times who was talking about social engineering at dinner conversations back in the late 90s or early 2000's. Just sayin'



> I'm not saying waste breath, but at least be open to the conversation and have civil discourse.


Too jaded and past the point of caring anymore. People are products of their environments; the social, and political divide has become larger then the Marianas trench is deep, and there is little to no common ground anymore. I think the basis of conversation starts with a shared understanding that the constitution means what it says. Not this "living breathing document" BS. That is circle talk for "Your rights are what we say they are" and "The law means what we say it means", which "circles back" to gun control, and that invariable becomes a circle jerk.


----------



## justismi28

@Lone_Hunter, thank you for taking the time to reply. 



Lone_Hunter said:


> If you mean facebook, twitter, linkin, etc, I've never used them. Mainly because I'm an old curmudgeon. I can recall the days of geocities and personal websites before social media became a thing. I'm also aware of things like "social engineering". You know I've a relative that has worked for the NY Times and LA times who was talking about social engineering at dinner conversations back in the late 90s or early 2000's. Just sayin'


I'm also talking Youtube, Parler, website tracking cookies etc. but yes. Facebook, twitter, instagram, tik tok et al are all guilty of leveraging their content algorithms to build your echo chamber and cater content to the reality you want. This is the online version of a chat with your friends\family where everyone has the same ideals and beliefs. For example, I'm a Stl. Cardinals fan. If you ask, I'll tell you they are the best team in the NL Central without acknowledging the great players the Brewers and the dreaded Cubs have. When I talk to other fans, they have the same mindset and it takes talking to Brewers fans to concede that Yelich, Rizzo, Bryant etc are all star caliber players.



Lone_Hunter said:


> Too jaded and past the point of caring anymore. People are products of their environments; the social, and political divide has become larger then the Marianas trench is deep, and there is little to no common ground anymore. I think the basis of conversation starts with a shared understanding that the constitution means what it says.


I disagree. I'm sorry that your life circumstance has pushed you to the point of apathy. But I don't think we're past saving just yet. To say that, and accept that, would mean the America I love and support is broken beyond repair. All it takes is a few people everyday listening to start change. Small ripples can become large waves.


----------



## paddler

Actually, the partisan divide on gun control has become much deeper over time. In August of 2019, 54% of Republicans thought gun laws should be more strict, today only 35% support the idea. Of course, 75% of Republicans don't believe Biden won the election legitimately, so there's that. Stop the Steal and QAnon believers are exclusively Republican phenomena, so finding common ground on anything is going to be an uphill battle.


----------



## bowgy

I feel that the only way to get common ground is if everyone could go back to the original wording in the amendment.

In my opinion, the reason that the gun right advocates are so steadfast in their beliefs is that the second amendment, if my memory serves me right, is the only one that states the the right of the people shall not be infringed. While many of the others state the rule of law.

The only way I see to get anywhere with gun control is to change the amendment or make a new one which would take two thirds of both houses, then a convention that would require 34 out of 50 states, then it would have to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states. I think that's right. Quite a process and a dangerous one in some ways.


----------



## paddler

bowgy said:


> I feel that the only way to get common ground is if everyone could go back to the original wording in the amendment.
> 
> In my opinion, the reason that the gun right advocates are so steadfast in their beliefs is that the second amendment, if my memory serves me right, is the only one that states the the right of the people shall not be infringed. While many of the others state the rule of law.
> 
> The only way I see to get anywhere with gun control is to change the amendment or make a new one which would take two thirds of both houses, then a convention that would require 34 out of 50 states, then it would have to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states. I think that's right. Quite a process and a dangerous one in some ways.


I disagree. Gun control is legal, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. Assault weapons have been banned before, societal shifts almost guarantee gun control will happen again in some form. No need to alter the Second Amendment or create a new one. There will never be a consensus on this topic. We are very divided, and becoming more divided every day. We can no longer agree on facts, people feel entitled to their own "alternative facts". If we can't agree on facts, agreement on policy is impossible.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

justismi28 said:


> @Lone_Hunter, thank you for taking the time to reply.
> 
> 
> I'm also talking Youtube, Parler, website tracking cookies etc. but yes. Facebook, twitter, instagram, tik tok et al are all guilty of leveraging their content algorithms to build your echo chamber and cater content to the reality you want.


Yeah I'm aware. I used to watch news sources from both left and right. What is always striking is how differently the same event is portrayed. I don't bother anymore, I'm tired of being lied to. The closest your going to find to real news is getting closer to other online sources. The people closer to the ground. Takes a little digging, but often enough, I've known about something a day or three before it hits mainstream news.



> I disagree. I'm sorry that your life circumstance has pushed you to the point of apathy. But I don't think we're past saving just yet. To say that, and accept that, would mean the America I love and support is broken beyond repair. All it takes is a few people everyday listening to start change. Small ripples can become large waves.


Optimist. Okay. Well, socially, I think we're past the point of saving. Half the country thinks America is systemically racist or Trump is Hitler , and the other half thinks the 2020 election was rigged. I fall in the later. 

Poltically and systemically we aren't past the point of no return yet, but the powers that be are pushing us to that as fast as they can before midterms. Gun control is but ONE thing that is going on, and actually worries me the least. As I said earlier, it's just one item, they all inter relate on a list of things people should keep an eye on.

EDIT:
Gotta love this guy.


----------



## dubob

Lone_Hunter said:


> Gotta love this guy.


Amen to that!


----------



## paddler

Lone_Hunter said:


> Yeah I'm aware. I used to watch news sources from both left and right. What is always striking is how differently the same event is portrayed. I don't bother anymore, I'm tired of being lied to. The closest your going to find to real news is getting closer to other online sources. The people closer to the ground. Takes a little digging, but often enough, I've known about something a day or three before it hits mainstream news.
> 
> 
> Optimist. Okay. Well, socially, I think we're past the point of saving. Half the country thinks America is systemically racist or Trump is Hitler , and the other half thinks the 2020 election was rigged. I fall in the later.
> 
> Poltically and systemically we aren't past the point of no return yet, but the powers that be are pushing us to that as fast as they can before midterms. Gun control is but ONE thing that is going on, and actually worries me the least. As I said earlier, it's just one item, they all inter relate on a list of things people should keep an eye on.
> 
> EDIT:
> Gotta love this guy.


Here's the deal, Lone Tree. If you think you know something a day or three before it's reported by major news outlets, you're delusional. If you, as you say, believe the 2020 election was rigged, you're just dead flat wrong. For sure you're listening to the wrong news sources. Sorry, but your alternative facts are rubbish. Unless and until you pull your head out, you should just stop posting. There's no other way to say it, no way to sugar coat it. Sorry.


----------



## Brettski7

Lone_Hunter said:


> Yeah I'm aware. I used to watch news sources from both left and right. What is always striking is how differently the same event is portrayed. I don't bother anymore, I'm tired of being lied to. The closest your going to find to real news is getting closer to other online sources. The people closer to the ground. Takes a little digging, but often enough, I've known about something a day or three before it hits mainstream news.
> 
> 
> Optimist. Okay. Well, socially, I think we're past the point of saving. Half the country thinks America is systemically racist or Trump is Hitler , and the other half thinks the 2020 election was rigged. I fall in the later.
> 
> Poltically and systemically we aren't past the point of no return yet, but the powers that be are pushing us to that as fast as they can before midterms. Gun control is but ONE thing that is going on, and actually worries me the least. As I said earlier, it's just one item, they all inter relate on a list of things people should keep an eye on.
> 
> EDIT:
> Gotta love this guy.


You keep on posting there Lone. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lone_Hunter

And now court packing is now officially in the works. Barely 3 months after taking office. Better hope they don't pull it off. Check whatever news you go to, it will be there soon if not already.

Now put that in ****ing context with

HR 1 (it's not what some of you may think it is)
ongoing attempts at the filibuster

Never mind that DC is still under military occupation. Anyone REALLY believe this is a legitimate regime that wasn't installed? Gun control is actually on the bottom of the list, but I'm sure it will make the top of the list once the Democratic Socialists have cemented themselves in permanent power and turned America into a 1 party socialist state. If you think I'm being hyperbolic, think about things that would have seemed nigh unto impossible in 2019, but have been normalized in 2021. If people don't unwoke themselves, we are 100% FUBARed.

Screw this topic, there's bigger things to worry about right now. So no, I wont keep posting. I was barely keeping on topic anyway.


----------



## dubob

Lone_Hunter said:


> And now court packing is now officially in the works. Barely 3 months after taking office. Better hope they don't pull it off. Check whatever news you go to, it will be there soon if not already.
> 
> Now put that in ****ing context with
> 
> HR 1 (it's not what some of you may think it is)
> ongoing attempts at the filibuster
> 
> Never mind that DC is still under military occupation. Anyone REALLY believe this is a legitimate regime that wasn't installed? Gun control is actually on the bottom of the list, but I'm sure it will make the top of the list once the Democratic Socialists have cemented themselves in permanent power and turned America into a 1 party socialist state. If you think I'm being hyperbolic, think about things that would have seemed nigh unto impossible in 2019, but have been normalized in 2021. If people don't unwoke themselves, we are 100% FUBARed.
> 
> Screw this topic, there's bigger things to worry about right now. So no, I wont keep posting. I was barely keeping on topic anyway.


Right on Brother, right on. Your posts have been a breath of fresh air on this thread. I look forward to seeing your posts elsewhere on UWN if not on this very FUBAR'ed thread. 
👍 😁


----------



## justismi28

"Socialism" has been taken and twisted to a point that it's become something to be feared by those uneducated on what it really is. It is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Why would that be a bad thing to remove the power from the Elite and give it back to you, the individual? 

And you may not want to realize and recognize it but we have some socialist ideologies today. Public roads and infrastructure for example. Your taxes help fund the maintenance and growth of those systems. Isn't that a socialist concept? What about Private Insurance? Insurance is privatized socialism where you pay into a pot in the event you need to leverage it. Did someone say Medicare? Do I want a wholly socialist state? No. Because theory and execution never match.

And thank you for proving my point regarding the echo chamber youtube creates. That video you shared is sensationalism and opinion based 'news' that is fear mongering and further reinforces your stance that "DemocRATS are BAD". It's not news, it's not informative, it's a clickbait video used to generate money for that clown.

Reality is, the "powers that be" as you called them are the elected officials. If those elected officials aren't doing their job they should be criticized and we reserve the right to vote them out in the next election. You should never idolize a political figure. They are public servants, not gods. There is absolutely ZERO proof of widespread election fraud. None. Nada. Zilch. The only two confirmed cases of fraud were republicans. To continue to spout that drivel and push that agenda is simply pushing false information. If you continue to hear that message from the 'news' you follow, at least be willing to admit you are living in a hyperbolic reality based on the information you consume.

As soon as someone comes along with logic that challenges your belief and makes you slightly uncomfortable, you default to 'Screw this thread, I'm out.' When we are comfortable being uncomfortable, that is when we can make progress and compromise.


----------



## bowgy

paddler said:


> I disagree. Gun control is legal, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. Assault weapons have been banned before, societal shifts almost guarantee gun control will happen again in some form. No need to alter the Second Amendment or create a new one. There will never be a consensus on this topic. We are very divided, and becoming more divided every day. We can no longer agree on facts, people feel entitled to their own "alternative facts". If we can't agree on facts, agreement on policy is impossible.


That's okay with me if you disagree, but as you stated and what I was trying to get at was "facts", however many disagree on what the facts are. There are laws that have gone against the constitution, that doesn't make them right just makes them the law of the land. We have 9 people right now to "interpret" the constitution so that means 5 people can make something a law for the nation. As I said, that doesn't mean that it is right or a good law just that it is the law of the land until a different group of 5 people decide to change it.


----------



## backcountry

Bowgy,

The one thing I've always liked about your posts is you seem to be able to share opinions and preferences while remaining curious. I'm trying to get better at communicating that way as I actually learn a ton from these threads and I've slowly (last five years; faster a few years years before when I started adopting more conservative perspectives) changed opinions over time on this forum.

I've actually long wondered about (a) another constitutional convention or (b) the potential for new amendments. It's more an intellectual exercise as I don't see how either side succeeds at doing either in good faith AND respect for divergent worldviews. We see on this thread how the various partisans can utterly disrepect opposing political ideals or just disregard them. And that's actually a mild strain of the range of toxicity we currently see.

I'm guessing we'll be in limbo on this for a while. Despite finding much of the content of Lone's posts abhorrent he does expose a growing contingent on the right. So does Paddler's comment about not needing "current owners" reflect a tense but vocal portion on the left. I would hate to imagine us constantly being yo-yoed between two such extreme views as administrations rotate between the parties. It's actually why I'm on Lone's side about court packing as I think that further opens pandora's box; I'm changing the metaphor but I think there is more in that box than when we first began opening it and I think it gets worse. Partisans are playing some ugly, dangerous games with our government. And 2A is likely the most explosive one in that respect.


----------



## paddler

bowgy said:


> That's okay with me if you disagree, but as you stated and what I was trying to get at was "facts", however many disagree on what the facts are. There are laws that have gone against the constitution, that doesn't make them right just makes them the law of the land. We have 9 people right now to "interpret" the constitution so that means 5 people can make something a law for the nation. As I said, that doesn't mean that it is right or a good law just that it is the law of the land until a different group of 5 people decide to change it.


Bowgy, as you say, SCOTUS hands down decisions which becomes the laws of the land. And it is also true that those decisions represent the opinions of the majority. They are sometimes accompanied by dissenting opinions presented concurrently. And, you and I are free to disagree with those opinions. Those are all factual statements, but not what I was talking about.

My statement to Lone Tree was in response to his expressed belief that the 2020 election was "rigged". As was stated above, there is no factual basis for his position. There are no facts to support his belief. There was no "steal", no widespread voter fraud. The Dominion machines were not "rigged". Dominion has filed lawsuits against many of those who lied about the machines, including Fox News, Rudy, Powell, Lindell, etc. They have identified many others who intentionally lied and who could also be targets. Powell backtracked recently when she said no rational person would actually believe what she said. Say what? Not a wise defense. Those parties are on the hook for billions of dollars because they intentionally lied about actual facts. And yet, despite all the evidence, Lone Tree believes the liars. His "facts" are delusions, which makes it difficult to rationally discuss policy. He has no right to think others are required to take his opinions into account when making policy. That's a fact.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Oh I can't resist....



justismi28 said:


> "Socialism" has been taken and twisted to a point that it's become something to be feared by those uneducated on what it really is


Redefining the definition doesn't change what it leads to. I wanted to say Communism as that is where "Democractic Socialism" will ultimately lead us, but i thought it too hyperbolic. Everything sounds better when you slap "Democratic" in front of it.



> Reality is, the "powers that be" as you called them are the elected officials. If those elected officials aren't doing their job they should be criticized and we reserve the right to vote them out in the next election.


LOL you really believe that will continue on the current trajectory? Cause from where I sit, 2016 will be the last free and fair national election if the current power grab is successful. If HR 1 is passed, the filibuster is removed, and the court is stacked, the days of free and fair elections are OVER. 



> You should never idolize a political figure. They are public servants, not gods.


On THAT we agree. I never idolized Trump. Truthfully he wasn't my first choice. I actually wanted the car salesman... IE Ted Cruz. But since I'm not in the republican party, I couldn't vote for him in the primaries. I didn't want Trump, I always thought it dangerous how people worshiped the man. I was never a Trumphumper. That said, over time, he proved himself to me at least, to be the right guy at the right time.



> There is absolutely ZERO proof of widespread election fraud. None. Nada. Zilch.


Now I KNOW you live in your own echo chamber while chastizing others of the same. That said, you are correct, there wasn't _widespread _voter fraud, there was _targeted _voter fraud. The symantics on this is important. You also have to look at what your dealing with - career politicians. They spend their entire lives never working an honest day in their life, learning how to game the system and work around the constitution. They knew exactly what they had to do, where to do it, and when. The current administration is illegitimate, and I will go to my grave saying it.



> To continue to spout that drivel and push that agenda is simply pushing false information.


I invite you to look at the latest Project Veritas expose on CNN. Go watch that and get back to me about false information.



> As soon as someone comes along with logic that challenges your belief and makes you slightly uncomfortable, you default to 'Screw this thread, I'm out.' When we are comfortable being uncomfortable, that is when we can make progress and compromise.


Don't flatter yourself. I said screw this thread in light of the supreme court packing. That issue is so large, it makes this one irrelevant for the time being. I'm not usually one to piss and moan about things that aren't immediately important. People are so fixed on the usual 2A BS they aren't looking past it to the larger and interconnected issues. Beyond that, the age of compromise is dead and has been for some time. My suggestion is to start reading up on the Irish troubles, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the economic collapse of Argentina, and Venezuela; because some weird combination of the four is where we are heading baring some unlikely and massive course correction. 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to try and refrain from any further acts of retardation. IE, arguing on the internet.


----------



## bowgy

paddler said:


> Bowgy, as you say, SCOTUS hands down decisions which becomes the laws of the land. And it is also true that those decisions represent the opinions of the majority. They are sometimes accompanied by dissenting opinions presented concurrently. And, you and I are free to disagree with those opinions. Those are all factual statements, but not what I was talking about.
> 
> My statement to Lone Tree was in response to his expressed belief that the 2020 election was "rigged". As was stated above, there is no factual basis for his position. There are no facts to support his belief. There was no "steal", no widespread voter fraud. The Dominion machines were not "rigged". Dominion has filed lawsuits against many of those who lied about the machines, including Fox News, Rudy, Powell, Lindell, etc. They have identified many others who intentionally lied and who could also be targets. Powell backtracked recently when she said no rational person would actually believe what she said. Say what? Not a wise defense. Those parties are on the hook for billions of dollars because they intentionally lied about actual facts. And yet, despite all the evidence, Lone Tree believes the liars. His "facts" are delusions, which makes it difficult to rationally discuss policy. He has no right to think others are required to take his opinions into account when making policy. That's a fact.


Looks like we do agree on something, the laws passed by the SCOTUS are opinions.

And I have tried to keep my posts on the OP of gun control, as far as voter fraud and a stolen election I will quote Hillary, " ‘What difference, at this point, does it make"? Hopefully we can clean up our voting process in the future but again, there is such a void in the agreement of how to do it.


----------



## paddler

bowgy said:


> Looks like we do agree on something, the laws passed by the SCOTUS are opinions.
> 
> And I have tried to keep my posts on the OP of gun control, as far as voter fraud and a stolen election I will quote Hillary, " ‘What difference, at this point, does it make"? Hopefully we can clean up our voting process in the future but again, there is such a void in the agreement of how to do it.


Interesting discussion, and illustrates my point above. If you believe the 2020 election was rigged, or stolen, you might be inclined to support the new laws in Georgia, or the 250 voter suppression bills across the country. Lone Tree sounds like he would, and Republicans broadly do. But, the fact is that the 2020 election was fair, most election officials called it the most fair and secure in our history:









It’s Official: The Election Was Secure


These government officials, judges, and elected leaders, overwhelmingly Republican, have publicly acknowledged confidence in the November election.




www.brennancenter.org





So, voter suppression bills are being promoted based on "The Big Lie". If one believes the election was secure, believes in democracy, the idea that every citizen should be encouraged to take part in the democratic process, should have a say in our government, they should support HB 1, now S 1. It passed the House but will get no Republican votes in the Senate. You need to ask why. 






I realize this is OT, but fair elections are essential to policy making, to ensure our elected representatives do the will of the people, including gun control.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> My statement to Lone Tree was in response to his expressed belief that the 2020 election was "rigged". As was stated above, there is no factual basis for his position. There are no facts to support his belief. There was no "steal", no widespread voter fraud. The Dominion machines were not "rigged".


The voting machines didn't need to be "Rigged". They include functionality to allow votes to be altered, changed, removed or added through a process called Adjudication.






This country is so partisan atm, it would have gone a long way if some of the Republican concerns had been vetted in an open examination vs just being swept under the rug and calling the R's crazy and "Trying to overturn the election".

Its still ongoing unfortunately, people going through voting records to find addresses used for voting are completely invalid and non-existant. But if you question what seems to be valid concerns, then you are labled as "trying to overturn the election.

D's have an extremely short memory though... we just went through 4 years of them saying Trump stole the election from Hillary and "He's not my president".

-DallanC


----------



## justismi28

Lone_Hunter said:


> Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to try and refrain from any further acts of retardation. IE, arguing on the internet.


I guess a key difference between how you and I interpreted this thread is I wasn't trying to argue. I never typed anything with malice or contempt. I was trying to have a healthy conversation to educate myself. You haven't provided any factual evidence, but really neither have I other than the factual definition of socialism. I never twisted it, I simply quoted the Webster definition and provided examples of where it's been implemented with checks and balances and oversight.

@Lone I appreciate your replies. I've learned quite a bit from where you sit with many others on this thread. While I don't agree with all your stances, we have more common ground than you realize. I haven't appreciated the tone you've taken at times where you conveyed your contempt, but I understand you don't know me and only know a few words I've posted so I don't take it personally. And yes, I realize there is an echo chamber of my own. I never said it didn't exist. Which is where my questions and conversation come from. I'm trying to gain perspective and do my own fact checking to formulate my opinions.

We all must use FACTS to formulate those opinions. Not narrative, fictitious or patently false information. It's hard to separate them, which is why I'm trying to understand. And no, I won't use YouTube for those facts and sources.

As has been mentioned many times in this thread, the two party partisanship is the issue. If we don't try to fix it, nothing will.


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> The voting machines didn't need to be "Rigged". They include functionality to allow votes to be altered, changed, removed or added through a process called Adjudication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is so partisan atm, it would have gone a long way if some of the Republican concerns had been vetted in an open examination vs just being swept under the rug and calling the R's crazy and "Trying to overturn the election".
> 
> Its still ongoing unfortunately, people going through voting records to find addresses used for voting are completely invalid and non-existant. But if you question what seems to be valid concerns, then you are labled as "trying to overturn the election.
> 
> D's have an extremely short memory though... we just went through 4 years of them saying Trump stole the election from Hillary and "He's not my president".
> 
> -DallanC


And another misinformed post fueled by lies. See what I mean? Despite the statements by election officials across the country, overwhelmingly Republicans, saying the election was secure, you post this crap. See the previous link. Despite the 63+ lawsuits filed and lost by the Trump campaign and his supporters, you post this crap. 





__





Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





It is impossible for those of us who base our beliefs on actual facts to engage with conspiracy theorists, nor are we obligated to try. Sorry, this is not partisanship, this is truth vs falsehoods. There is no equivalence.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> And another misinformed post fueled by lies.


The video I posted doesn't show the ability of the machine to alter votes? Please explain how it doesnt do what the video shows it doing.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> The video I posted doesn't show the ability of the machine to alter votes? Please explain how it doesnt do what the video shows it doing.
> 
> -DallanC


The fact that you believe and post that video shows a lack of critical thinking skills on your part. Did you contact Dominion asking for verification? Has any reliable source corroborated the video? Please, do your homework. Or not. Just don't expect anybody who lives in a fact-based reality to take you seriously.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> The fact that you believe and post that video shows a lack of critical thinking skills on your part. Did you contact Dominion asking for verification? Has any reliable source corroborated the video? Please, do your homework. Or not. Just don't expect anybody who lives in a fact-based reality to take you seriously.


Nice pivot. You still havent shown where the video is in error.

Oh, and directly off of Dominions website:



https://www.dominionvoting.com/optional-solutions/ said:


> Dominion’s ImageCast® Adjudication delivers an efficient, auditable process for ballots that meet customizable outstack conditions based on jurisdictional needs. Outstacked *ballots can be automatically routed to adjudication stations, where election officials review the digital image of the original ballot.* Contests needing review can be highlighted for easy identification. *All adjudication actions are logged and documented on the appended digital ballot image for auditing. * Customers report improved ballot review times and transparency benefits, ultimately leading to significant cost-savings.


-DallanC


----------



## paddler

paddler said:


> The fact that you believe and post that video shows a lack of critical thinking skills on your part. Did you contact Dominion asking for verification? Has any reliable source corroborated the video? Please, do your homework. Or not. Just don't expect anybody who lives in a fact-based reality to take you seriously.


You will note that Fox had a Come To Jesus moment after being slapped with the $1.6 billion lawsuit by Dominion. They have stopped promoting that lie and have actually pushed back against it when guests try to repeat it. They will have their day in court, unless, of course, they settle. I think Dominion wants to go to trial to prove the point. I think punitive damages are in order.


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> Nice pivot. You still havent shown where the video is in error.
> 
> Oh, and directly off of Dominions website:
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


Your post shows that contested ballots can be reviewed for verification, and all adjudications are logged for transparency. It does nothing to prove widespread voter fraud or that Dominion machines can be altered to switch votes, etc. You're not helping yourself here. 

You will note that Fox had a Come To Jesus moment after being slapped with the $1.6 billion lawsuit by Dominion. They have stopped promoting that lie and have actually pushed back against it when guests try to repeat it. They will have their day in court, unless, of course, they settle. I think Dominion wants to go to trial to prove the point. I think punitive damages are in order.

Dallan, I suggest you look into Dominion further, but educate yourself by looking at reliable sources. Until and unless you do so I cannot waste time discussing it with you. Zombie arguments never die.


----------



## bowgy

paddler said:


> Interesting discussion, and illustrates my point above. If you believe the 2020 election was rigged, or stolen, you might be inclined to support the new laws in Georgia, or the 250 voter suppression bills across the country. Lone Tree sounds like he would, and Republicans broadly do. But, the fact is that the 2020 election was fair, most election officials called it the most fair and secure in our history:
> 
> I realize this is OT, but fair elections are essential to policy making, to ensure our elected representatives do the will of the people, including gun control.


There are a lot of people that feel that there was election fraud as you well know. That was what I was talking about cleaning it up so that the majority of the people feel that it is fair. Most of the winners could care less if it was fraud or not as long as they won. And I think that would be the feeling on either side. For myself I would want fair and honest elections no mater the outcome.

I just read through the Georgia law on CNN and the only thing I could see wrong was that they can still vote without a state issued picture ID that I think should be required. They can use a utility bill for verification. It doesn't look to me to suppress voting just cleans it up and makes it more efficient unless I missed something. I didn't take time to go to the State of Georgia website.

As for mail in voting I have no issue, the state of Utah has done it for a while and I think has a pretty good process, the problem with the last election that I could see was it was rushed through in some states that hadn't had the time to set it up properly.


----------



## paddler

bowgy said:


> There are a lot of people that feel that there was election fraud as you well know. That was what I was talking about cleaning it up so that the majority of the people feel that it is fair. Most of the winners could care less if it was fraud or not as long as they won. And I think that would be the feeling on either side. For myself I would want fair and honest elections no mater the outcome.
> 
> I just read through the Georgia law on CNN and the only thing I could see wrong was that they can still vote without a state issued picture ID that I think should be required. They can use a utility bill for verification. It doesn't look to me to suppress voting just cleans it up and makes it more efficient unless I missed something. I didn't take time to go to the State of Georgia website.
> 
> As for mail in voting I have no issue, the state of Utah has done it for a while and I think has a pretty good process, the problem with the last election that I could see was it was rushed through in some states that hadn't had the time to set it up properly.


Yes, there are many who believe there was fraud, but that belief is based on Trump's lies, repeated ad nauseum by his supporters. But the "Big Lie" has been soundly refuted. Take a look at the link I posted above regarding the court cases filed by Trump and his supporters. From the Wiki:

_After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost at least 63 lawsuits[1] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[2]

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence;[3] judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous"[4] and "without merit".[5][6] In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day.[7] Only one ruling was initially in Trump's favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to “cure” their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes,[8] and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.[9]

*Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters falsely[10] asserted widespread election fraud in public statements, though few such assertions were made in court*.__[11_

The bolded section is important. They didn't make the same assertions in court as they did in in public comments for a very good reason. Officers of the court who knowingly make false statements risk sanction, and they knew better than to flat out lie in court. The entire campaign is hogwash, the fact that Trump supporters keep pushing it does not warrant any change in voting laws. There is nothing anybody can do to change their minds. Clearly Dallan, Lone Tree, and perhaps many others here believe Trump's BS. That's on them, nobody else. End of story.

Take a look at HB 1, let me know if you have any objections.


----------



## Bax*

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some really interesting topics going on here fellas, and some stuff I’d like to further understand but it’s starting to veer into (gasp) politics other than politics that affect outdoors / shooting.

Let’s get back on topic here and keep the discussion moving.

Side note: thanks for keeping things civil. I really admire your constructive comments without starting a fight. This is why UWN is cool


----------



## wyogoob

Bax* said:


> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Some really interesting topics going on here fellas, and some stuff I’d like to further understand but it’s starting to veer into (gasp) politics other than politics that affect outdoors / shooting.
> 
> Let’s get back on topic here and keep the discussion moving.
> 
> Side note: thanks for keeping things civil. I really admire your constructive comments without starting a fight. This is why UWN is cool


Yeah, we got a little off tract. Back to the "They're gonna take our guns away" stuff. Thanks.


----------



## paddler

wyogoob said:


> Yeah, we got a little off tract. Back to the "They're gonna take our guns away" stuff. Thanks.


Nothing like another mass shooting to get us back on topic. Eight more dead, five wounded(?), "assault" rifle, in two minutes. Male, don't know age. Reclassify!! Or, ban and confiscate. I really don't care, and neither do most Americans. This is bullsh*t.


----------



## wyogoob

paddler said:


> Nothing like another mass shooting to get us back on topic. Eight more dead, five wounded(?), "assault" rifle, in two minutes. Male, don't know age. Reclassify!! Or, ban and confiscate. I really don't care, and neither do most Americans. This is bullsh*t.


Uh....good morning to you too.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

wyogoob said:


> Uh....good morning to you too.


Good morning Happy Friday! IMO Its not going to make any difference at this point to ban any guns. There's too many out there. At this point the only thing I can see to do is open carry or con. carry to at least make the playing field a little bit more even. Might save some lives. Have a good weekend!


----------



## dubob

7MM RELOADED said:


> At this point the only thing I can see to do is open carry or con. carry to at least make the playing field a little bit more even. Might save some lives. Have a good weekend!


Might save some lives? Hello - it WILL save some lives. Had every concealed carry employee at that facility been allowed to carry concealed, the death toll would have been less or the attacker wouldn't have attempted his attack and nobody would have died. But we are once again diverting from the OP's original post - bidens ignorant attempts to disarm America. I offer yet another point of view with regard to gun bans from a Fordham University Law Professor. Obviously, he will be judged by our liberal UWM members to be unqualified to speak on this issue, but some of you more enlightened members might find it right on point.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

That was my point exactly obviously , with out the political anger that we should not get into on here friend, calm down I'm with you.


----------



## backcountry

I don't normally say this but the PragerU video wasn't too bad.

The only issue I see is it overly narrows down gun control down to total bans. As one many assume (incorrectly) is a liberal, I have to say that's an untrue summary. Even Paddler's proposal doesn't appear to be an outright ban but a targeted application process, though that comes with its own hurdles.

There is a wide path between all out bans and doing nothing (the status quo). I would hope we'd have the means and desire to work on a solution within that path.


----------



## backcountry

We don't know the full details of the most recent shooting but this is hard to ignore:


----------



## dubob

backcountry said:


> The only issue I see is it overly narrows down gun control down to total bans. As one many assume (incorrectly) is a liberal, I have to say that's an untrue summary.


I'm of the opinion that the video was addressing the issue from a national perspective. And from a national perspective the speaker was spot on. Liberals, as a whole, would like nothing lass than a total ban on civilian ownership of all firearms. Their party platform demands it and their leadership espouses it almost every time they appear in public to discuss it. The dozen or less participants on this thread that are not 2A hawks are no where near the liberal whole of the country. For you, the summary MAY be untrue, but on a national level, the ultimate goal for liberals is nothing less than a total ban of all civilian ownership of firearms. Biden and his handlers are on a full out mission to make that happen.


----------



## backcountry

I assume, given your conspiratorial use of "Biden and his handlers", believe the DNC = liberal; because if you believe Biden is a flaming liberal than the DNC is clearly more to his left. Let's take that tenuous at best claim at face value. Here is the DNC 2020 platform:



> .Democrats believe that we can reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. We believe we should expand and strengthen background checks for those who want to purchase a firearm – because it shouldn’t be easier to get a gun than a driver’s license. We believe we should ensure that guns don’t fall into the hands of terrorists (whether they be domestic or foreign), domestic abusers, other violent criminals, or those who have shown signs of danger toward themselves or others. And we believe we should treat gun violence as the deadly public health crisis it is.


Interesting that a group you believe to be so clearly after your guns so blatantly mentions "respecting the rights of responsible gun owners" (we could criticize that framing if we wanted to knit pick). 

I mention that as Biden would be a bland centrist in years past if both parties didn't try to frame the overton window solely from the perspective of the opponent's crazies. I say that as in the past conservativism recognized no right is absolute and that gun violence can be mitigated through thoughtful policy, including gun control. They did that recognizing the importance of 2A and the liberty it protects. 

My support for the bland, moderate claim sits with his own Executive Actions list:



> The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.
> 
> The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act
> 
> The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states
> 
> The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions.
> 
> *The Justice Department will issue an annual report on firearms trafficking.*
> 
> The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms











FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Initial Actions to Address the Gun Violence Public Health Epidemic | The White House


Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is announcing six initial actions to address the gun violence public health epidemic. The recent high-profile mass




www.whitehouse.gov





Radical, arms confiscating stuff there?

His support for an Assault Weapons Ban is undoubtedly more politically aggressive but remember it (the expired 1994 bill its larger built on) was bipartisan back in the day, even some Democrats voted against it. 

Point being, Biden's concepts are moderate, left of center policy not some liberal's wet dream. Not only that but I know a ton of liberals and the vast majority support targeted bans not mass infringement on the 2A. Yes, there are extremist on the left who would be fine completely ignoring SCOTUS rulings but they don't reflect the majority's preferences.

You have consistently presented hateful, unsubstantiated ideas that don't reflect reality well at all. You are free to do so but it doesn't make them any more factual. It's a shame that citizens have been targeted by sophisticated fear mongering campaigns for decades now but we don't have to continue supporting such propaganda. And the approach is incompatible with solutions on any level that don't just accept the crisis as status quo and every man for himself.


----------



## paddler

7MM RELOADED said:


> Good morning Happy Friday! IMO Its not going to make any difference at this point to ban any guns. There's too many out there. At this point the only thing I can see to do is open carry or con. carry to at least make the playing field a little bit more even. Might save some lives. Have a good weekend!


So, the solution is for everybody to carry all the time? What could possibly go wrong?

Three words- Mandatory buy back.



dubob said:


> I'm of the opinion that the video was addressing the issue from a national perspective. And from a national perspective the speaker was spot on. Liberals, as a whole, would like nothing lass than a total ban on civilian ownership of all firearms. Their party platform demands it and their leadership espouses it almost every time they appear in public to discuss it. The dozen or less participants on this thread that are not 2A hawks are no where near the liberal whole of the country. For you, the summary MAY be untrue, but on a national level, the ultimate goal for liberals is nothing less than a total ban of all civilian ownership of firearms. Biden and his handlers are on a full out mission to make that happen.


Source, Bob? Care to share with us actual quotes from Biden on gun control? Maybe quote the Democratic Party platform? You said you were done with this thread some time ago. Pinky promise?

And that video is rubbish. He quoted data from 1978 and 1982. Over the past 40 years public opinion has evolved to the point that 65% of Americans want tougher gun laws.

The Fedex shooter was 19 years old and so fits the demographic targeted by my reclassification proposal.


----------



## backcountry

It's about wording. Stricter gun control is increasingly higher. Support for bans on assault weapons is even high. But support for generic gun bans, including handguns, isn't a majority. 

Different framing often leads to misunderstandings of the topic. The video was intentional in its framing of the subject as it put their argument in positive light. It ignored data that shows the majority of citizens do support certain targeted bans, what he dismissed as half measures. He built a bit of a strawman by building the argument around the generic concept of banning.


----------



## DallanC

His mother turned him in last year to the FBI due to fears he would "commit suicide by cop". The article is poorly written but it seems to imply a shotgun was confiscated due to the comment of "the shotgun was not returned". So here's a guy on the radar, guns confiscated and still committed this atrocity. Its going to be interesting to hear when he acquired the firearm used in this shooting, if he got before or after the FBI investigation. If after, why was the database not updated to disallow purchases.



Gunman in Indianapolis Kills 8 People at Fedex Facility





> In a statement, Paul Keenan, special agent in charge of the F.B.I. field office in Indianapolis, said the gunman had been interviewed by agents in April of last year. “The suspect’s mother contacted law enforcement to report he might try to commit ‘suicide by cop,’” Mr. Keenan said.
> 
> The police department put the suspect on an “immediate detention mental health temporary hold,” he said, and items in the suspect’s bedroom prompted the agency’s involvement. “No criminal violation was found,” Mr. Keenan said. “The shotgun was not returned to the suspect.”


-DallanC


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> His mother turned him in last year to the FBI due to fears he would "commit suicide by cop". The article is poorly written but it seems to imply a shotgun was confiscated due to the comment of "the shotgun was not returned". So here's a guy on the radar, guns confiscated and still committed this atrocity. Its going to be interesting to hear when he acquired the firearm used in this shooting, if he got before or after the FBI investigation. If after, why was the database not updated to disallow purchases.
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman in Indianapolis Kills 8 People at Fedex Facility
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


So, apparently he was subject to a temporary hold due to mental illness. That should permanently prohibit him from obtaining a Class 3 license. So under my proposal he would not be able to legally buy an AR-type weapon. It will be interesting to learn how he obtained the weapon. This illustrates the beauty of my proposal, now more than 8 years old. Nobody would be able to buy or sell these guns without Class 3 clearance, but the reclassification would not prevent responsible gun owners from doing so.


----------



## Critter

If everything worked correctly he wouldn't be able to even posses a gun if he went through a dealer. 

I'm not sure if Indiana has universal background checks.

So until they come out with just how he obtained what he had who knows?


----------



## dubob

backcountry said:


> I assume, blah, blah, blah!


NR's Mr. Cooke says it much better than I ever could - Biden’s Gun-Control Theater


----------



## middlefork

dubob said:


> NR's Mr. Cooke says it much better than I ever could - Biden’s Gun-Control Theater


I love the last paragraph of that article. It speaks volumes.


----------



## backcountry

It's hard to square "gun control theater" and the general incompetence Mr Cooke highlights with an evil cabal deadset on taking all your guns.

Which is it?

Though I agree with Middlefork, at least about the last sentence. Its definitely anemic policy that's just bound to piss off the left activists who want more and fill the coffers of groups like the NRA who will spin it as gun ownership end times. Those two groups aren't the majority but they are the loudest. Though it's hard to call it an end run around Congress as the executive actions (not orders) all seem to be within classic pervue of the executive and current law. I think the phrase on the right was nothing burger.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> If everything worked correctly he wouldn't be able to even posses a gun if he went through a dealer.
> 
> I'm not sure if Indiana has universal background checks.
> 
> So until they come out with just how he obtained what he had who knows?


If those guns were reclassified he couldn't buy that gun anywhere legally.


----------



## middlefork

More than a dozen guns seized from Tooele County house


Two people were arrested in Tooele County this week as part of an ongoing investigation that police say started when more than two dozen guns were stolen from the home of a war veteran.




www.ksl.com





So who is the criminal here? And how would your reclassification solve it?


----------



## Critter

paddler said:


> If those guns were reclassified he couldn't buy that gun anywhere legally.


What gun? They haven't even let out that information yet that I have seen.


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> More than a dozen guns seized from Tooele County house
> 
> 
> Two people were arrested in Tooele County this week as part of an ongoing investigation that police say started when more than two dozen guns were stolen from the home of a war veteran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ksl.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is the criminal here? And how would your reclassification solve it?


Now, that's the dumbest question I've heard in a while. But, I will say that if my proposal was adopted, all the reclassified weapons would have been in secure storage and so likely not stolen. Anything else?


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> What gun? They haven't even let out that information yet that I have seen.


The deputy police chief said they thought a rifle was used, an eye witness said he had an AR. Given the elapsed time, I'll bet you anything the weapon would have been reclassified under my proposal. How much you got?


----------



## middlefork

paddler said:


> Now, that's the dumbest question I've heard in a while. But, I will say that if my proposal was adopted, all the reclassified weapons would have been in secure storage and so likely not stolen. Anything else?


So now a safe is not secure storage? What in your world constitutes safe storage?


----------



## middlefork

And here is a perspective that I think is pretty honest. Not that I agree with all.





__





Reality check on gun control






www.msn.com


----------



## DallanC

Witnesses said it was an submachine gun or automatic.









Indianapolis FedEx Employees Say Mass Shooter Used Automatic Rifle


Two Indianapolis FedEx employees spoke to reporters about the shooting they witnessed at their workplace.




www.newsweek.com






> He continued: "Then we start hearing six to around 10 shots. This made me stand up and actually look at the entrance door and I saw a man with a submachine gun of some sort, an automatic rifle, and he was firing in the open."


-DallanC


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> So now a safe is not secure storage? What in your world constitutes safe storage?


Oops, my bad. I didn't see they cut open his safe. I wonder what kind of safe it was and how they cut it open. Kinda makes you wonder about gun safes in general.


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> Witnesses said it was an submachine gun or automatic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indianapolis FedEx Employees Say Mass Shooter Used Automatic Rifle
> 
> 
> Two Indianapolis FedEx employees spoke to reporters about the shooting they witnessed at their workplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


I'm guessing it wasn't a full auto, probably just a semiauto that uses detachable magazines, which would be covered by my proposal. Most people wouldn't know the difference. We'll see.


----------



## Critter

paddler said:


> Oops, my bad. I didn't see they cut open his safe. I wonder what kind of safe it was and how they cut it open. Kinda makes you wonder about gun safes in general.


99% of the gun safes out there can be opened up quite easy with a $10 grinder and a cutting wheel

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> 99% of the gun safes out there can be opened up quite easy with a $10 grinder and a cutting wheel
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


Makes sense. I had a bike stolen off a bike rack on my car that was chained up. A cordless angle grinder made short work of it


----------



## Critter

And inside the house you have power available. I actually should of said around 90% of safes.

But with home handymen having these grinders and cutting wheels no lock is safe if someone wants access to something. Even my safe that is made out of 1/4 inch plate can be gotten into. Not as easy as others but it can be done. 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry

I think the thing Paddler is missing is the speculation is the problem. We don't know the true details on guns used yet and as the article highlights spectator observations can be all over the board. Only time will tell on the actual weapon.


----------



## MooseMeat

With an angle grinder or cutting torch, not too many safes are impenetrable. They are easier to get into than most people would ever care to admit.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I think the thing Paddler is missing is the speculation is the problem. We don't know the true details on guns used yet and as the article highlights spectator observations can be all over the board. Only time will tell on the actual weapon.


I'm missing nothing. I understand that it's all speculation. I am accustomed to making judgements based on incomplete information given my profession. But if the witness statements are true, that this was over in two minutes, he killed people and wounded more, and it's thought by eyewitnesses and the police that he used a rifle, and semiautomatics are far easier to get than Class 3, I conclude that he used the latter. Not a shotgun, not a bolt action rifle, or a baseball bat. He used the type of weapon that would be reclassified under my proposal. Any bets? I'll cover them all.


----------



## backcountry

Just interesting given the previous criticisms of speculation from incomplete information you've lobbed at others in this very thread.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Just interesting given the previous criticisms of speculation from incomplete information you've lobbed at others in this very thread.


Any bets?


----------



## paddler

So, the shooter legally purchased the two "assault" rifles. That could not have happened if they had been reclassified. No way he would have passed Class 3 scrutiny. And, BTW, my speculation was correct. Spot on, as is my proposal. It's the most surgical way to prevent these types of shootings and is the least intrusive possible. Or would you prefer bans?


----------



## backcountry

It wasn't the content of the guess but how speculation doesn't help and how it's hypocritical on your part.

And it appears there were laws in place already that should have stopped those purchases. If it's a failure of the system what makes you think that won't happen in the enforcement of yet another law? The state appears to have failed it's duties in reporting to the feds if reporting is correct. 

I think we have to address those realities before adding more complexity to the system. This isn't the first time such processes failed and resulted in a mass shooting.

And it's extremely odd to brag in a post about mass shootings. It serves no purpose and is a little disturbing.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> It wasn't the content of the guess but how speculation doesn't help and how it's hypocritical on your part.
> 
> And it appears there were laws in place already that should have stopped those purchases. If it's a failure of the system what makes you think that won't happen in the enforcement of yet another law? The state appears to have failed it's duties in reporting to the feds if reporting is correct.
> 
> I think we have to address those realities before adding more complexity to the system. This isn't the first time such processes failed and resulted in a mass shooting.
> 
> And it's extremely odd to brag in a post about mass shootings. It serves no purpose and is a little disturbing.


It wasn't a guess, it was a deduction, pattern recognition, if you will. It was based on analysis of multiple similar episodes that I recognized and addressed at least eight years ago and have happened unabated since. Instead of criticizing, you should admit, as you have intimated in previous posts on this thread, that there is a definite pattern to these events. Easily recognizable, and one that demands action. Further, you should do one of two things, either admit the value of my proposal, perhaps offer some refinements, or offer some concrete solutions of your own. I have invited others to come up with what they thought might be a solution to the problem of mass shootings a couple of times on this thread alone, nobody has taken up the gauntlet, yourself included.

It's not clear to me that he was able to purchase the weapons because the state failed to notify the feds. Not sure where he purchased the guns, but the FBI was involved when they took his shotgun away in April of last year. Whatever happened, the system failed. Again. We need to improve the system. 

My post was not bragging, not hypocritical, it was to drive home the point that these shootings are perpetrated by a distinct demographic using a particular type of weapon, and I laid out that pattern in my first post on this thread. The fact that your response is to criticize me instead of addressing the problem is disturbing. You have offered precisely nothing constructive regarding possible solutions to the problem of mass shootings. Perhaps you should give it more thought? I thought you had me on ignore? That would perhaps allow you to focus more on problem solving. Be my guest.


----------



## backcountry

The nice thing about ignore is I get to choose posts I want to see. I ignore most of your partisan ranting and respond to issues of substance.

And its totally fine for a person to take an educated stance that concludes with "I don't know the solution". In this case I'm not convinced your proposal will pass constitutional muster. The only real way to know is to shop it with legislatures and find a sponsor. After almost a decade of having it I'm shocked you haven't done so.

I vote for people I consider acting in good faith on the issue and hope for the best. As it turns out, our sphere of control is minimal on this. Sucks but true. I'm learning to accept that while still being principled. My sphere of influence is also minimal but I do believe it matters to focus on things like facts instead of speculation when dealing with issues like this. I'm imperfect at it myself but it's a standard you yourself have used here and the criticism of posts that fail to be consistent with that is fair game.

The reality is your response ignores the hypocrisy of that. But you seem to have a cute little loophole that allows you to guess, in an educated fashion, instead of waiting a couple days for the agencies to report the details of the incident. You seem to fail to understand that such a strategy undermines your argument. You seem to miss how that very trend is driving burnout, which is antithetical to getting citizens bought into possible solutions.

Best of luck with your idea. Maybe consider not bragging about your educated guess being correct though (the taunting users about betting also undermines the seriousness of the situation) and maybe focus on actual facts as they are made available. It might help convince people better instead of making it about you.


----------



## Irish Lad

Paddler, I appreciate the thought and effort you have given to this thread. I believe there needs to be a major national investment in mental health issues. My beautiful wife was diagnosed with dementia last year, getting help for her is horrible and expensive. It seems many of these shootings come from individuals with know mental health issues. 
Maybe if the mental health care system worked better we could see a reduction in these tragedies. 
I believe taxing and reclassifying semiautomatic weapons is not a good idea. If someone is legal to own a firearm so be it. Otherwise people with more money wouldn't be affected and less affluent would be, reminds of a poll tax. Or like charging a higher tax on a 30 pack of beer because someone might drink more and drive drunk. Or taxing fast cars more because people might speed more and cause more wrecks. 
Unfortunately there are no easy solutions.


----------



## paddler

Irish Lad said:


> Paddler, I appreciate the thought and effort you have given to this thread. I believe there needs to be a major national investment in mental health issues. My beautiful wife was diagnosed with dementia last year, getting help for her is horrible and expensive. It seems many of these shootings come from individuals with know mental health issues.
> Maybe if the mental health care system worked better we could see a reduction in these tragedies.
> I believe taxing and reclassifying semiautomatic weapons is not a good idea. If someone is legal to own a firearm so be it. Otherwise people with more money wouldn't be affected and less affluent would be, reminds of a poll tax. Or like charging a higher tax on a 30 pack of beer because someone might drink more and drive drunk. Or taxing fast cars more because people might speed more and cause more wrecks.
> Unfortunately there are no easy solutions.


First, let me say I'm sorry to hear about your wife, dementia is a terrible thing for everyone involved.

Back to the topic, trying to prevent other tragedies. As I pointed out before a purely mental health approach would be cumbersome, expensive and inefficient. Alzheimer patients do not, as a rule, commit mass murder. Many on the Right cry out "Mental Health" when these things happen. It's a dodge, a deflection. The very simple fact is that these mass shooting occur because of the nexus between mental illness and "assault weapons". Both are required, neither one alone produce these tragedies. No need to screen the entire population, only those who wish to purchase these weapons need to undergo strict scrutiny. Nobody else. If a waterfowler wants to go to a store and buy an SBE III, no problem. If a big game hunter wants to buy a bolt gun, feel free. If a pimply-faced 19 yo kid wants to buy an AR, pay attention. FBI background check. Home interview by local LEO, including anybody who lives in the home. Guarantee safe storage insofar as possible. Pay the $200 fee. These measures alone would likely prevent these people from even trying to make a purchase. One alternative is a ban, which didn't work before and there's no reason to think it will work now. To have any chance it would have to include guns in circulation, and that is not going to happen. Another is to say nothing can be done, maintain the status quo. In which case the shootings will continue unabated, so brush up on your "Thoughts and Prayers" spiel. The last option is to come up with something better than the above alternatives, and as shown on this thread, there's no interest in doing so.


----------



## backcountry

Edited:. Post was incorrect. Commitment for mental health observations is excluded in the federal law according to footnotes I missed.

Apologies for error.


----------



## Irish Lad

paddler said:


> First, let me say I'm sorry to hear about your wife, dementia is a terrible thing for everyone involved.
> 
> Back to the topic, trying to prevent other tragedies. As I pointed out before a purely mental health approach would be cumbersome, expensive and inefficient. Alzheimer patients do not, as a rule, commit mass murder. Many on the Right cry out "Mental Health" when these things happen. It's a dodge, a deflection. The very simple fact is that these mass shooting occur because of the nexus between mental illness and "assault weapons". Both are required, neither one alone produce these tragedies. No need to screen the entire population, only those who wish to purchase these weapons need to undergo strict scrutiny. Nobody else. If a waterfowler wants to go to a store and buy an SBE III, no problem. If a big game hunter wants to buy a bolt gun, feel free. If a pimply-faced 19 yo kid wants to buy an AR, pay attention. FBI background check. Home interview by local LEO, including anybody who lives in the home. Guarantee safe storage insofar as possible. Pay the $200 fee. These measures alone would likely prevent these people from even trying to make a purchase. One alternative is a ban, which didn't work before and there's no reason to think it will work now. To have any chance it would have to include guns in circulation, and that is not going to happen. Another is to say nothing can be done, maintain the status quo. In which case the shootings will continue unabated, so brush up on your "Thoughts and Prayers" spiel. The last option is to come up with something better than the above alternatives, and as shown on this thread, there's no interest in doing so.


I respectfully disagree, I don't think it's a dodge to believe it's a primarily a mental health issue. But you are entitled to your views as are others. God Bless


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Almost every policy change benefits some groups and is detrimental to others. That's often unavoidable. That's where the "greater common good" concept comes in. There is no way to implement any form of gun control without some cost to current or future owners. These things are all a risk/reward calculation. In this case, is the cost of reclassifying semiautos worth the reward calculated as lives saved? I think the general public wants gun control, a poll in March showed 65% of Americans want tougher laws. When smoking was banned in public places, were smokers inconvenienced? Was the greater common good served?


You simply don’t understand the constitution with comments like this. Was smoking a constitutional right?

The rights granted in the constitution exist for the very reason to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The constitution and the individual rights granted therein simply are not concerned with the greater good. They are rights possessed and protected individually, not collectively for the greater good. I assure you that if we removed the provisions of the 4th amendment we could do a ton of things that would fall in “the greater good” category for society. We could save way more lives and protect public safety than any gun control measure ever could dream, but that’s not how our constitutional democratic republic works.

I have not read every page in this thread, but I’ve seen you say nobody has told you how to improve your proposal. That’s not true. I have in this very thread, and have in more than one conversation in the past as well. I’ve even told you where it would fail constitutionally. You just choose to not listen. Which is your right, but don’t say it’s been crickets. It hasn’t been. You’re going to have to take handguns out.

There is room for “reasonable regulation” by the government of firearms. We (the collective “we,” although I’m guessing you and I would not either) will never be able agree on what is reasonable.


----------



## paddler

So, as per the Republican playbook, there are now calls for more mental health resources 'across all levels of government". Quoting Republican Senator Todd Young:





__





- The Salt Lake Tribune






saltlaketribune-ut.newsmemory.com





No mention of gun control. Of course. There's only been 47 mass shootings in the US in the last month. No biggee, let's do mental health. After all, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". "Arm the teachers, harden the schools". "From my cold, dead hands!" "Thoughts and prayers". "Sincerely". Repeat ad nauseum.


----------



## backcountry

Best of luck folks. Looks like we'll need a healthy dose of it.

(Deleted the rest)


----------



## paddler

Looks like the Red Flag law in Indiana failed because the prosecutors didn't think they had enough time to gather the evidence to guarantee winning the case in court. The law apparently has tight timelines and constraints on evidence which made success uncertain, and the authorities were afraid that losing the case could backfire:



Authorities Did Not Try to Use ‘Red Flag’ Law for Indianapolis Gunman



RPO's on a state-by-state can be effective in suicide prevention, but will not address the problem of mass shootings. We need a national solution to mass shootings, something clear, simple, elegant and effective. The best way to reduce human error is to implement simple, clear policies and procedures. Maybe something like reclassification, which, by the way, would pay for itself.


----------



## paddler

I saw an interview the other night with Sim Gill talking about the Indianapolis shooting. Four of the Fedex victims were Sikh, and Sim is as well. I have reached out to his office about my proposal, we'll see what if anything happens. I was advised on this thread to reach out to my congressman, shop it around, etc. I did, but never heard back from John Curtis, my representative. Lee is a lost cause, of course, and I have not been optimistic about Romney. Watch this space.


----------



## paddler

There's a powerful animated short film on Netflix regarding mass shootings called, "If Anything Happens I Love You".


----------



## bowgy




----------



## paddler

Not sure how the above is pertinent to the discussion. To quote George W. Bush after Trump's inaugural speech, "That was some weird sh*t."


----------



## bowgy

Guess it takes a true patriot to get it. Sorry.


----------



## paddler

bowgy said:


> Guess it takes a true patriot to get it. Sorry.


"Patriot". You guys keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Credit Inigo Montoya.


----------



## bowgy

Thanks for proving my point


----------



## paddler

bowgy said:


> Thanks for proving my point


So, have you been vaccinated? It's the patriotic thing to do.


----------



## bowgy

paddler said:


> So, have you been vaccinated? It's the patriotic thing to do.


Yep!

But being concerned that my post had nothing to do with the OP why would you ask something like this?

Since you didn't seem to understand what the song had to do with the OP I will try to explain. Gun control and gun banning goes against the constitution, tyranny can lead to revolution or civil war. In the chorus of the song it calls for down with the traitors:
*The Union forever,
Hurrah! boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitors,
Up with the stars;
While we rally round the flag, boys,
Rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.*
Which I feel anyone going against the constitution is.

Now I have a few questions for you.
1 - Would you defend and protect President Trump with your life? (I would)
2 - Would you defend and protect President Biden with your life? (I would)
3 - Have you ever served in the military or taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? It's the patriotic thing to do. ( I have, heck my mother that was born in Germany migrated to the United States in the 40's after the war and became a US citizen took a similar oath to support and defend the constitution).


----------



## DallanC

bowgy said:


> But being concerned that my post had nothing to do with the OP why would you ask something like this?


Virtue signaling / virtue judging.

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

Sounds like Paddler must be pissing in the pool again.

The phrase virtue signaling always makes me laugh though. Reality is most political posts are by definition "virtue signaling". It's only a bad thing though when the other side does it. I mean what's more of a virtue signal than flag waving to show one type of patriotism? The supposed insult of "virtue signaling" has to be one of the most vapid elements of negative partisanship there is around today.

Since we are talking about patriotism. I think when we are all honest we know there is more than one way to show pride and commitment to a country or it's principles. I'm guessing Paddler's post tried to narrowly definite it, hence the change in conversation. I support our veterans and troops but I'll never serve in the military. I don't fly a flag (for very historically accurate reasons that align with my other values) but I support those who do. I show patriotism by voting, by respecting governmental outcomes that don't go my way but are constitutionally fair/proper, supporting my community, etc.

The older I get the more I believe one of the most patriotic things I can do is support a sort of "confident pluralism" that a democratic republic strives for in its ideals. I understand and support how others will celebrate their patriotism differently. Hopefully we can get back to a place of respecting that sort of lived difference before we tear apart our country because we perceive those on the right or left as our existential enemies.

*And I also would never put my life on the line for any president. They are a figurehead. The idea and principle lives on without them. I dare say the question is inverted; the president should know they may sacrifice their own life when taking office to protect the republic and it's citizens.


----------



## bowgy

backcountry said:


> Sounds like Paddler must be pissing in the pool again.
> 
> *And I also would never put my life on the line for any president. They are a figurehead. The idea and principle lives on without them. I dare say the question is inverted; the president should know they may sacrifice their own life when taking office to protect the republic and it's citizens.


This is understandable as you also said that you would never serve in the military which is also understandable.

Part of the military oath is to protect your commander in chief, The President, whether you agree with his values or not or if you like him or not. I didn't rescind that oath when I was discharged.

As for paddler I was willing to serve to protect his rights to have and express his opinion. I am intrigued by his passion even though I don't agree with all he says.

As for virtue signaling, I was not trying for that but giving paddler an idea of where my patriotism comes from.

But again we are straying from the OP for which I apologize.


----------



## backcountry

Sorry for confusion, the virtue signaling was a critique of Dallan's interjection. 

I also better understand your question so thank you for that clarification. I think that this is one of the true benefits of our country, ie we can approach issues differently and coexist. I actually come from a military family and was encouraged by one of the veterans not to volunteer. They knew me and understood my contribution was elsewhere. Over the years I've really come to understand the sacrifice my family members made and how novel their recommendation was at the time. I'm grateful to inherit a concept of patriotism that is so respectful of such difference. I haven't always vocalized it well but it's humbling to see the range of ways people support and protect their country.

To the topic....given the context of protecting 2A, would you consider Scalia a patriot or traitor? I ask as he was a diehard conservative who helped tailor the modern understanding of the individual right to bear arms but he also wrote clearly that gun control can be constitutional. I try to understand people's take on that as I try to sincerely navigate what appears to be a razor's edge of this issue socially but our constitutional history shows we have more room to both protect liberty and pass legislation. I'm vulnerable though as my understanding and preferences have changed significantly over the last 2 decades and assume they can again.


----------



## bowgy

backcountry said:


> To the topic....given the context of protecting 2A, would you consider Scalia a patriot or traitor?


I don't know him well enough to say either way. I don't think that one is a traitor just because he/she is not a patriot.
I think that Scalia did the job he had to the best of his ability. I have never heard of him doing anything treasonous.
Not liking something in the constitution or some law I don't feel makes you a traitor, if you don't like something I think you have every right in the world to do your best to change it. But, until it is changed I feel that it needs to be obeyed.

That being said there are times when laws might need to be broken such as: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation".


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I show patriotism by voting, by respecting governmental outcomes that don't go my way but are constitutionally fair/proper, supporting my community, etc.


This quote from backcountry brings up an interesting point. Trump incited the insurrection on January 6th, 2021 in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Charges have been brought against at least 540 members of that Trump mob, many of whom are using the defense that Trump told them to do it. Was Trump supporting the Constitution, or fulfilling his oath of office in doing that? You know, the part where he said, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." His attempts to undermine the election began well before November and continue to this day. Is attempting to undermine or overturn an election patriotic, or traitorous? Is Trump a patriot or a traitor? Is unconditionally supporting a traitor patriotic?

You referenced the Civil War, or, as it has been termed, the War of the Rebellion. Grant famously said, "There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party." He was talking about slavery, not gun control. If you're saying that people who support gun control are traitors, or that the 2A is absolute, not subject to restrictions, well, you'd be incorrect.


----------



## bowgy

paddler said:


> This quote from backcountry brings up an interesting point. Trump incited the insurrection on January 6th, 2021 in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Charges have been brought against at least 540 members of that Trump mob, many of whom are using the defense that Trump told them to do it. Was Trump supporting the Constitution, or fulfilling his oath of office in doing that? You know, the part where he said, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." His attempts to undermine the election began well before November and continue to this day. Is attempting to undermine or overturn an election patriotic, or traitorous? Is Trump a patriot or a traitor? Is unconditionally supporting a traitor patriotic?
> 
> You referenced the Civil War, or, as it has been termed, the War of the Rebellion. Grant famously said, "There are but two parties now: *traitors* and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party." He was talking about slavery, not gun control.


*?????*

Another post with nothing to do with the OP, and you do know Trump was impeached right? And you also know that Trump is no longer president right? You don't have to have him living in your mind all the time.

Also another post full of questions while refusing to answer questions posed to you.

And another example to help you recognize patriotism.


----------



## paddler

Sorry, I thought you were implying that those of us who believe in reasonable gun control are traitors. Must have missed something. backcountry's post about how he evinces patriotism reminding me about Trump's lack thereof. You asked if I would defend Trump with my life. No, I would not. Many Trump supporters call themselves "patriots", I do not think they know what the word means. OT, I know, unless you start calling gun control advocates traitors.


----------



## bowgy

Well that answered one of three questions.

No I don't feel that those that want gun control are traitors, just those that take an oath to defend the constitution and then don't could possibly be considered traitors. If they want to change it or any laws then they have every right to do so but until it is changed it is still the law of the land.


----------



## paddler

So, do you think the Constitution prohibits any form of gun control? Is that what you're saying? As far as your other questions, I have not and will not serve in the military. But I'm not alone in that, veterans make up just 7% of our population. And, if I had served, it would have been in the Vietnam era, which according to Hasting's book was an epic tragedy. My brother served in Vietnam, one of his high school friends was killed there. And whether I would defend Biden, that's a hypothetical I wouldn't speculate upon. Sure impressed with what he's done thus far, though.


----------



## bowgy

There already is gun control. I feel that we don't need any more. It's a slippery slope. Say they ban the large capacity magazines, will that make them happy? No they will want more. If they ban the scary black guns, will that make them happy? No they will want more. What if we ban all semi automatic firearms, will that make them happy? No, they won't stop, there is no agreement that they will accept.

There is no reason to impose more restrictions on law abiding citizens, it will not stop any criminal attempt.

I served in the Vietnam Era, I am NOT a Vietnam Vet, I went in after the draft and after Nixon brought the war to an end and was bringing the troops home. I was in military school during the fall of Saigon. I had 2 bother in laws that served in Nam and with the middle east crisis at the time my friends coming back from Nam convinced me to change my MOS. I had 3 Commander in Chiefs, or is that Commanders in Chief? Nixon, Ford and Carter.


----------



## backcountry

Bowgy,

I'm curious about the severing of ties rhetoric that's increasingly common on the edges of the right (Battle Hymn and other statements you've made hint at the perspective). The Declaration of Independence has some beautiful poetry and profound philosophy but many of the same founders intentionally designed a narrow path for succession into the actual constitution. I think we both know severing the ties of our nation that way is improbable (though David French wrote a very readable book on the subject recently). Given that unlikely route, are people really going to justify violent separation over more gun control? 

I ask as doing so is a paradox. The patriots who choose such a route will by definition be pursuing the most unconstitutional and traitorous act possible. Those individuals will be going against the constitution and government for a political philosophy that has no judicial antecedent. And a constitutional republic solves it's disputes through law and order, especially the high courts, not open rebellion. Our founders weren't subtle in structuring our system that way.

Not to mention, modern western history of the last century doesn't bode well for creating a freer and more prosperous republic than we currently have. That's especially true for the right to bear arms. The only countries with greater gun ownership liberties aren't exactly paragons of true liberty and equality. And violent insurrection in the modern era tends to end with illiberalism and reduction in the freedoms average citizens are fighting for. Autocrats in western nations don't seem to mind one bit exploiting the sincere values of their "base" to gain power. And autocrats tolerate an armed citizenry the least of all liberties.

Its all pretty heavy stuff but I just don't see how a cost benefit analysis shows how this escalating rhetoric of insurrection or succession benefits anyone's values. That seems especially true given the recourse have in the SCOTUS and Congress or even the executive. The chance the left can push sustainable, massive gun restrictions into law is almost nil given how quickly we rotate party majorities of the federal government. 

TLDR: the courts are our avenue, not separation. And no matter the previous administration's bigger legacy, they successfully filled the federal court system with Federalist Society oriented justices who aren't likely to tolerate federal overreach into gun control.


----------



## dubob




----------



## Critter

dubob said:


> View attachment 148151



Don't forget Washington DC, Baltimore, the state of California and New York.


----------



## Lone_Hunter




----------



## paddler

Thoughts and prayers San Jose. But let's not do anything, it's only nine more dead.


----------



## backcountry

Some of the predicted dominos are falling after Heller.









Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional


In his decision, Judge Roger T. Benitez praised the AR-15 as a "home defense weapon."




www.nbcnews.com





Not sure will this will land if appealed but folks are rightful to consistently mention the "common use" standard set in Heller. Laws need to recognize that even if legislatures disagree with it's existence/justification.

It's a very narrow path ahead for assault weapons bans, if one exists at all.


----------



## Aznative

Alot of good thoughts and responses here. Sad times for sure. One thing I have noticed is alot of people are voicing concerns over 2nd Amendment issues but are not coming together to fight these issues. In March of 2020 I started the Wasatch County 2nd Amendment group not knowing anyone here. Doing so I met some great people. I worked with our Sheriff and County. It took over a year but we finally got our County to accept a 2nd Amendment Ordinance protecting our Rights. So many Counties nationwide are taking these steps. Most are doing Resolutions but they need to push for Ordinances that have teeth. We cannot rely on big government anymore and have to use local government to help. Hopefully more Counties in Utah get ordinances done to help push Cox and the State to do a statewide sanctuary. If any of you live in a county that doesn't have an ordinance and you want to get one please reach out to me and I am willing to give you advice. There are tips and tricks to get it done.


----------

