HB961

[Jeep Driver]

7 hours ago, schardein said:

I served as a United States Marine for 30 years.  I've handled the M16A2, and later the M16A4, and finally the M4 (among others) as my service weapon in training and in combat.  

 

Some may find it interesting that none of these weapons were full automatic, or "machine guns".  The third setting was a 3 round burst- one trigger pull = 3 rounds down range.  So you have safe, semi-auto, and 3 round burst.  The idea was to provide a weapon capable of laying down a good volume of cover fire, but not full automatic so as to prevent wasting ammunition.

 

Anyone who points out the civilian equivalent (AR-15) as a weapon that is somehow inherently evil is displaying ignorance.  In fact, the AR-15 is easy to handle, even for woman and children.  They can be fired by left or right handed people.  Try that with the stereotypical bolt action "hunting rifle", most of which are expressly designed for right handed individuals.  They can be very accurate right out of the box, and can be made HIGHLY accurate with a little bit of work.  The design lends itself to modification, and many owners do that so the firearm better serves their needs, or simply their wants.  These days they are available in different calibers, making them even more useful for different applications.  I've done extensive marksmanship training while in the Marine Corps with a semi-auto only version of the M16, modified for accuracy, routinely engaging targets out to 1000 yards effectively.

 

Does anyone else see a correlation with the characteristics that make Jeeps so popular?  

 

The 2nd amendment is about we the people having the right to protect ourselves from tyranny.  Plain and simple.  Anyone trying to take away that right can name reason after reason, but the truth is that they are trying to disarm and enslave the people.  Anyone who can't see that is either ignorant, or letting fear influence their thoughts (I don't want to protect myself, someone else should do it for me).  The extension of that thought process is "since I don't want it, no one else should have it either- it wouldn't be fair".  That's why you have so many screaming for gun control, instead of simply saying, "I'm not interested in owning a firearm, but others can and should exercise their right to bear arms".

 

Keep in mind that every politician that advocates for gun control, is protected by... men with guns.

[olddude]

[johnj92131]

All,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful replies!

 

JJ

[Jeep Driver]

39 minutes ago, johnj92131 said:

All,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful replies!

 

JJ

 

 

Couple of months ago there were a couple of vids of Hong Kong protesters who where arrested being marched onto trains............we've seen this before. I just looked on youtube, either taken down or..........

 

Information, who controls it? See vid below. 

 

There are people in this world, an element of which, a significant element of which, want to see you enslaved, imprisoned, or dead, and in no particular order. The US is the toughest nut to crack, they've been working us over for 100 years. 

Disarming us is the Great Hurdle, had Hillary been elected.............

They have plans for you, for me, for us. 

 

And I cannot stand Fux News......but here-

 

Edit: I'm in no way implying that the Chinese are 'those' people who want to see you dead. 

 

 

 

[NHMJXJ]

8 hours ago, schardein said:

The 2nd amendment is about we the people having the right to protect ourselves from tyranny.  Plain and simple.  Anyone trying to take away that right can name reason after reason, but the truth is that they are trying to disarm and enslave the people.  Anyone who can't see that is either ignorant, or letting fear influence their thoughts

 

Amen.

[Manche757]

8 hours ago, schardein said:

 

Keep in mind that every politician that advocates for gun control, is protected by... men with guns.

 

There are too many bullets being wasted on school children and other innocents. 

 

The second amendment is the source of gun rights, but that amendment could be voted away with a 2/3 vote.  Just as the amendment that repealed alcohol prohibition was,

 

 https://www.fastcompany.com/40550252/repeal-the-second-amendment-here's-how-it-would-work-and-why-its-so-hard

[Ωhm]

Isn't the real debate, not about gun ownership (written during the age of muskets), but magazine size, silencers, and trigger activators for public use? Hell, might as well throw background checks into the mix. At what point does my steak knife turn into a assault knife? I only ask these question to broaden this discussion.

Prepare for incoming.

[derf]

While these trends may not hold up, it's important to understand that the election as a whole is probably going to be heavily influenced by factors outside of this topic.  And because of those other factors, this topic could be heavily affected.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-enthusiasm-exclusive/exclusive-ahead-of-2020-election-a-blue-wave-is-rising-in-the-cities-polling-analysis-shows-idUSKBN20D1EG

 

Of course, this trend can change.  The Democrats are really good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  They do it all the time.  But if they build up a head of steam things may change drastically in November.

 

As always, the most important thing you can do is to vote.  Your individual vote may not mean much but the whole of the election is changed by people choosing to vote or not, especially when the contest is close.  So go out and find the people you want to represent for you and turn in your ballot.

[Pete M]

33 minutes ago, Ωhm said:

Isn't the real debate, not about gun ownership (written during the age of muskets), but magazine size, silencers, and trigger activators for public use? Hell, might as well throw background checks into the mix. At what point does my steak knife turn into a assault knife? I only ask these question to broaden this discussion.

Prepare for incoming.

 

I tend to be for a law if it really will change things for the better.  The problem is that they rarely do.  Murder is already against the law (and has some super-stiff penalties for doing so).  If someone is already willing to break that law, how can any other laws stop them?  Laws only stop the law abiding. 

[schardein]

49 minutes ago, Manche757 said:

 

There are too many bullets being wasted on school children and other innocents. 

 

The second amendment is the source of gun rights, but that amendment could be voted away with a 2/3 vote.  Just as the amendment that repealed alcohol prohibition was,

 

 https://www.fastcompany.com/40550252/repeal-the-second-amendment-here's-how-it-would-work-and-why-its-so-hard

I can't tell by your post where you stand on the issue, but consider this.  If there was a wide sweeping ban on what are now commonly owned personal firearms, and door to door collection was initiated, the number of fatalities from that effort would make the number of mass shooting victims in America's history pale by comparison.  And probably more than half of those would be "innocents", people, who before the ban, had never committed a violent crime in their life, but are now criminals because they own guns.

 

I agree that lives lost to criminals murdering them is a tragedy.  

 

If you want to protect school children from violent armed criminals, ask a politician how he or she is protected from violent armed criminals- the answer is "men with guns".

 

Ask yourself this question:  If all personally owned firearms were outlawed, do you think politicians would still have armed guards?  The answer is yes.  And not a single one of them are better than me.  I am entitled to the same level of protection.  This is where the argument that silencers, automatic weapons, large capacity magazines should be available to everyone stems from.

 

Also, any journalist that uses the term "assault rifle" is a clown.

[derf]

20 minutes ago, Pete M said:

 

I tend to be for a law if it really will change things for the better.  The problem is that they rarely do.  Murder is already against the law (and has some super-stiff penalties for doing so).  If someone is already willing to break that law, how can any other laws stop them?  Laws only stop the law abiding. 

By my way of thinking, people are focusing on the wrong thing.

 

It's not a gun problem.  It's a criminal problem.

 

We let out violent criminals so that we can make space for non-violent drug offenders (mostly brown people, btw).  We hold past convictions over people's heads for life which drives them towards criminal activity as it is harder for them to find legitimate work rather than focusing on rehabilitation and helping to integrate back into society.  There has been a bi-partisan effort to de-fund public mental health care over decades which leaves the crazies out on the streets.  We don't prosecute straw purchasers who get guns into the hands of people who commit violent crime.  In every case of a mass shooting, lots of people knew the shooters were unstable and dangerous but no one was willing or able to do anything about it until it was too late.

 

Those are the problems we need to be solving.  But there's no profit in solving those problems so the owners of the country pay the politicians to do other things.  Then they have both sides talk up guns to get us all fired up and arguing with each other so we don't pay attention to what's really going on in the world.

[Manche757]

6 hours ago, schardein said:

I can't tell by your post where you stand on the issue.

 

First off, Greg, let me say that I found your comments quite eloquent.  Secondly, I hit my target with my comment; I intended to make an observational comment rather than express an opinion. There was a tongue-in-check aspect to the comment though. It can be said that China or India would welcome an epidemic which would reduce there over population, but no rational person would want that to happen. Nor do rational people want open hunting season on unworkable politicians, although there would be some downstream advantages.

 

But now that you that have flushed me out, I think most of the serious gun control issues  target the right problem in making lethal weapons of any type less convenient for the crazies, disenchanted, chemically impaired or those that just  don't give a schit. I recall decades ago, military  men returning from Vietnam commenting that we take too much for granted concerning how easily things can change.  Governments take away weapons, record who might be armed and then restrict freedom rights to the citizenry. The much more difficult challenge is to find the right solution.

 

What I see is that those that do not have guns, do not want guns and want laws restricting gun rights.  Those that have guns don't want to give up those rights.  Solutions will take a lot of cool headed thinking.  I do not live in a bad neighborhood but if I did, I would want serious defense weapons close at hand. But serious offenses occur anywhere these days. Intellectually, I tend to favor no control on any weapons.  Practically, that is nuts. Would you want to live near someone that has a stockpile of mortar rounds?

 

A quote attributed to the late Margaret Mead, an anthropologiist, said: "No group in power ever give up the power willingly".  Men did not want to give women the right to vote.  Whites did not want to give blacks freedom or the right to vote.  Married people did not want singles to fornicate.  Heterosexuals did not want homosexuals to have sex.  Christians hate Muslims.  There is a good chance that whatever side of an issue someone is on, correlates  with whether they have a privilege or lack the privilege.

 

Now Greg, aren't you sorry that you asked?   

[Eagle]

9 hours ago, Dzimm said:

 

These days, there isn't a reason for so much restriction as the police force has caught up with the times on firepower.  The nice thing though is that the $200 tax to purchase an NFA item hasn't changed since 1934, meaning overtime it became easier for an average citizen to afford them.

 

Except that the sale to civilians of new machine guns was stopped entirely. Today we can only buy machine guns that were made prior to the cutoff. There aren't many "average citizens" who can afford the price of an actual Thompson "Chicago Typewriter." The $200 tax is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

[Dzimm]

Just now, Eagle said:

 

Except that the sale to civilians of new machine guns was stopped entirely. Today we can only buy machine guns that were made prior to the cutoff. There aren't many "average citizens" who can afford the price of an actual Thompson "Chicago Typewriter." The $200 tax is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Correct, sometime in the mid 80s is the cutoff for new machine guns.  They could very easily make it even harder for people to afford NFA items by jacking up the tax and I'm surprised they haven't.  I really wish I could afford a suppressor, no ear pro would be nice.

[Eagle]

7 hours ago, Ωhm said:

Isn't the real debate, not about gun ownership (written during the age of muskets), but magazine size, silencers, and trigger activators for public use? Hell, might as well throw background checks into the mix.

 

Nope. The anti-gun activists are in it for the long game. Their approach is "creeping incrementalism" -- divide and conquer. They regard AR-15s (and their ilk) as the low-hanging fruit. Those are easy to fool lots of people about -- they look like military rifles, so we'll call them "assault weapons" (a made-up term that has no consistent definition), and ban those first. Once those are gone, they'll come after something else next. And then something else. In the end, if we're lucky we might be allowed to own a single-shot .22.

 

"Assault weapons"? The now-expired federal assault weapons ban defined a, "assault weapon" as having a detachable magazine and one other feature from a list. One of the items on the list was a protruding pistol grip, so that was it for AR-15s. That led to the so-called "post ban" AR-15s, which had no bayonet lug (gotta cut down those drive-by bayonettings), no flash hider, no threaded barrel, no folding or telescoping stock, no vertical foregrip. Many states copied that definition; my home state of Connecticut was one of them. Connecticut didn't repeal their assault weapon ban when the federal ban died, so we were stuck with post-ban configured AR-15s.

 

Until the Sandy Hook school shooting. In the aftermath, New York state passed their "SAFE Act," and Connecticut revised the definition of an "assault weapon." The new definition is:

 

Quote

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition (Revised as of June 18, 2013).
As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive:

(1) “Assault weapon” means:

(A) (i) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the
option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi;
Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type;
Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster
Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of
Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV,
MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather
AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and
ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93,
HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9
and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only;
Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield

Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker

12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms

Nighthawk; Wilkinson “Linda” Pistol;

(ii) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault
weapon, as defined in subparagraph (A)(i) of this subdivision, or any combination of parts from
which an assault weapon, as defined in subparagraph (A)(i) of this subdivision, may be rapidly
assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;

(B) Any of the following specified semiautomatic centerfire rifles, or copies or duplicates thereof
with the capability of any such rifles, that were in production prior to or on April 4, 2013:

 

(i) AK-47; (ii) AK-74; (iii) AKM; (iv) AKS-74U; (v) ARM; (vi) MAADI AK47; (vii) MAK90; (viii)
MISR; (ix) NHM90 and NHM91; (x) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S and 86S; (xi) Poly Technologies AKS
and AK47; (xii) SA 85; (xiii) SA 93; (xiv) VEPR; (xv) WASR-10; (xvi) WUM; (xvii) Rock River
Arms LAR-47; (xviii) Vector Arms AK-47; (xix) AR-10; (xx) AR-15; (xxi) Bushmaster Carbon 15,
Bushmaster XM15, Bushmaster ACR Rifles, Bushmaster MOE Rifles; (xxii) Colt Match Target
Rifles; (xxiii) Armalite M15; (xxiv) Olympic Arms AR-15, A1, CAR, PCR, K3B, K30R, K16, K48,
K8 and K9 Rifles; (xxv) DPMS Tactical Rifles; (xxvi) Smith and Wesson M&P15 Rifles; (xxvii)
Rock River Arms LAR-15; (xxviii) Doublestar AR Rifles; (xxix) Barrett REC7; (13-3) Beretta
Storm; (13-3i) Calico Liberty 50, 50 Tactical, 100, 100 Tactical, I, I Tactical, II and II Tactical
Rifles; (13-3ii) Hi-Point Carbine Rifles; (13-3iii) HK-PSG-1; (13-3iv) Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU
Rifles, and RFB; (13-3v) Remington Tactical Rifle Model 7615; (13-3vi) SAR-8, SAR-4800 and
SR9; (13-3vii) SLG 95; (13-3viii) SLR 95 or 96; (13-3ix) TNW M230 and M2HB; (xl) Vector Arms
UZI; (xli) Galil and Galil Sporter; (xlii) Daewoo AR 100 and AR 110C; (xliii) Fabrique
Nationale/FN 308 Match and L1A1 Sporter; (xliv) HK USC; (xlv) IZHMASH Saiga AK; (xlvi) SIG
Sauer 551-A1, 556, 516, 716 and M400 Rifles; (xlvii) Valmet M62S, M71S and M78S; (xlviii)

Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine; and (xlix) Barrett M107A1;

 

(C) Any of the following specified semiautomatic pistols, or copies or duplicates thereof with the
capability of any such pistols, that were in production prior to or on April 4, 2013: (i) Centurion
39 AK; (ii) Draco AK-47; (iii) HCR AK-47; (iv) IO Inc. Hellpup AK-47; (v) Mini-Draco AK-47; (vi)
Yugo Krebs Krink; (vii) American Spirit AR-15; (viii) Bushmaster Carbon 15; (ix) Doublestar
Corporation AR; (x) DPMS AR-15; (xi) Olympic Arms AR-15; (xii) Rock River Arms LAR 15; (xiii)
Calico Liberty III and III Tactical Pistols; (xiv) Masterpiece Arms MPA Pistols and Velocity Arms
VMA Pistols; (xv) Intratec TEC-DC9 and AB-10; (xvi) Colefire Magnum; (xvii) German Sport 522
PK and Chiappa Firearms Mfour-22; (xviii) DSA SA58 PKP FAL; (xix) I.O. Inc. PPS-43C; (xx)
Kel-Tec PLR-16 Pistol; (xxi) Sig Sauer P516 and P556 Pistols; and (xxii) Thompson TA5
Pistols;

(D) Any of the following semiautomatic shotguns, or copies or duplicates thereof with the
capability of any such shotguns, that were in production prior to or on April 4, 2013: All
IZHMASH Saiga 12 Shotguns;

(E) Any semiautomatic firearm regardless of whether such firearm is listed in subparagraphs (A)
to (D), inclusive, of this subdivision, and regardless of the date such firearm was produced, that
meets the following criteria:

(i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has
at least one of the following:
(I) A folding or telescoping stock;(II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the
use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger
hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon
when firing;
(III) A forward pistol grip;
(IV) A flash suppressor; or
(V) A grenade launcher or flare launcher; or
(ii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the ability to accept more
than ten rounds; or
(iii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than thirty inches; or
(iv) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least
one of the following:
(I) An ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine that attaches at some location
outside of the pistol grip;
(II) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward pistol grip or silencer;
(III) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits
the shooter to fire the firearm without being burned, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(IV) A second hand grip; or
(v) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the ability to accept more than ten
rounds; or
(vi) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(I) A folding or telescoping stock; and
(II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the
use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger
hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon
when firing; or (vii) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable
magazine; or
(viii) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or
(ix) Any semiautomatic firearm that meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (3) or (4) of
subsection (a) of section 53-202a of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1,
2013; or

 

(F) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault
weapon, as defined in any provision of subparagraphs (B) to (E), inclusive, of this subdivision,
or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in any provision of
subparagraphs (B) to (E), inclusive, of this subdivision, may be assembled if those parts are in
the possession or under the control of the same person;

 

To cut that down, it means that (in addition to adding a LOT of firearms by specific name, including handguns, the list of "evil" features constituting an "assault weapon" was reduced from two (detachable magazine plus one other) to one -- period, full stop. An AR-15 has a detachable magazine, so ALL AR-15s instantly became "assault weapons" when the governor signed the bill. All the formerly legal, not-an-assault-weapon "post-ban" configured AR-15s were suddenly "assault weapons."

 

Then look at the bill that's being proposed in Arizona right now. Their proposed definition of "assault weapon" includes ALL semi-automatic rifles (yes, the Ruger ranch rifle and the Ruger 10/22), and all rifles with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds (hello, Winchester 9422 and Henry H001 lever action .22s). Arizona's proposed ban has a grandfather clause -- you can keep "assault weapons" you already own, but they have to be registered, and you would have to pass a new background check to keep the guns you already legally own. AND ... te registration would have to be renewed every year, with another background check for every annual renewal.

 

When the definition is subject to change based on the whims of the political bloc in power, it's not a definition. What's happening in Arizona shows clearly that the end game isn't just scary-looking, evil black, AR-15s and other guns that look like (but aren't the same as) military weapons. The end game is all guns in civilian ownership.

 

Quote

At what point does my steak knife turn into a assault knife?

 

 

When you pick it up? Seriously, look at England. People have been prosecuted for using things like a steak knife for self defense when their homes were invaded.

[JustEmptyEveryPocket]

6 hours ago, Manche757 said:

Intellectually, I tend to favor no control on any weapons.  Practically, that is nuts. Would you want to live near someone that has a stockpile of mortar rounds?

Why is it nuts to put this into practice? Frankly I would love for my neighbors to have electric mini guns, mortars, and anything else their heart desired. As long as I could also have anything my heart and pocket book could support. Its continual group think like this that keeps individual people from realizing the truth.

6 hours ago, Manche757 said:

I think most of the serious gun control issues  target the right problem in making lethal weapons of any type less convenient for the crazies, disenchanted, chemically impaired or those that just  don't give a schit.

With respect, this is a load of crap. Laws are best as blanket statements instead of algorithmic decision makers. In other words a law is binary, either you meet it or you don't. It can't judge shades in-between. So when people say 'make a law' all they are really saying is 'take the responsibility off me so I don't have to try'. It does nothing but weaken everyone, expect those that aren't willing to follow the law anyways. To keep 'lethal weapons' out of the hands of the people you suggest you need everyone around them to have enough wherewithal and ability to judge that particular situation and come to the best solution. 

 

Its like going to the bar with your group of friends. You depend on your friends to help monitor your state of inebriation, and you do the same for them. They call you out if you have had one shot too many (or at least good friends should). They also help call you out on driving if you have had too much (again we are assuming a good group of friends here). There is not a police officer per person per bar that stands there and makes sure you don't @#$% up. Its the group of people you are with who do that job if you can't anymore.  Why can't we as a people step up, accept this responsibility, and do what needs to be done for those around us?

 

I'll end it with a favorite quote:

“I rather doubt he had the sense to see the truth: that there are wounds worse than fatal, which the law's little binary distinctions-guilty/innocent, criminal/victim-cannot fathom, let alone fix. The law is a hammer, not a scalpel.”

― William Landay, Defending Jacob

[rokinn]

I've owned a firearm since the age of 10 and own several now.  I have an expert ranking for the M14 and the M16 from the military.  I can hit small targets in rapid succession from the standing position with an open site AR 15 at 300 yards (no I don't own one).  My brother has his FFl and my father before him.  What I haven't heard in this discussion is one IOTA of a sense of RESPONSIBILITY on the part of those of the gun rights/2nd amendment persuasion on how to prevent the now on average daily mass shootings (4 or more killed at one time in one place) in this country.  All I hear is it's MY RIGHT (based on how you would like to read the 2nd amendment) that is paramount and the paranoia that Tyrannosaurus Democratis will render me defenseless based on some narcissistic Ramboism and nihilistic orientation.  And yes, I will match my knowledge of fascism, totalitarianism, communism, with anyone on this site.   I got my Safe Hunter training and badge (which I still have) from the NRA.  The NRA now is just a front group that is part of the Military Industrial Complex and has nothing but money at it's base of priorities and lip service to......gun rights??

 

The notion that we have laws for murder and yet we still have murders misses the point entirely.  Murder happens, imagine if it weren't against the law, would there be more or less of them.  With laws against it, at least there is a way to hold those accountable who commit it and remove them from society.  Gun rights are a problem for society today and comparisons to the "letter" of the constitution based on then is to look at the world through a straw.  Is the National Guard a well regulated militia as compared to the average citizen today?  At this point the polarization on the issue blinds everyone to coming up with a solution that prevents the needless slaughter of the innocent on a daily basis.  What is the cost of freedom?  Ask the 6 year old at Sandy Hook, or the music lover at a concert in Las Vegas. 

[Eagle]

10 hours ago, Manche757 said:

 

There are too many bullets being wasted on school children and other innocents. 

 

 

Even one is one too many, but it's impossible to prevent ALL criminal or ALL evil acts. But the question arises: how many bullets are you referring to? What's your source of data?

 

According to one of the [alleged] grass roots "gun safety" (i.e. anti-gun) advocacy groups, there have been 223 mass shootings in the United States since 2009. That sounds like a lot ... but it isn't really true. To most of us, a "mass shooting" means an incident wherein a shooter (or multiple shooters) randomly attack(s) a large venue and shoots people unrelated to the shooter(s), mostly for the purpose of killing as many people as possible. This would include school shootings, mall shootings, nightclub attacks, and disgruntled employee attacks. But I've been tracking such events, and there aren't anywhere near 223 of them in the U.S. since 2009.

 

I believe the current definition of a mass shooting is an incident in which four or more people (excluding the shooter) are wounded or killed. According to my data (which may be missing one or two incidents, but I'm pretty close) shows that, since (and including) 2009 and through 2019 (to match Moms Demand Action's time frame) there have actually been 81 mass shootings. Why the discrepancy? Because they conflate data. They include gang shootings. They include police officer-involved shootings. They fudge the data.

 

They do the same thing to inflate the number of school shootings. They have included as "school shootings" incidents such as a single .22 bullet (probably a stray) that shot a hole in the window of a school -- at night, when the building was unoccupied. They have included as "school shootings" incidents in which police officers have fired at suspects while on school property -- but the incidents didn't involve students, weren't in the school buildings, and no students were injured.

 

And they complain that the pro-gun side won't have a "dialogue." It's hard to have a constructive dialogue when one side is an idealogue. They talk about "compromise," but compromise is supposed to mean that each side gives up something. In the gun control debate, the anti-gun side wants gun owners to do all the giving up, while they give up nothing. That's not compromise. There's a law enforcement officer in Texas who explains this far better than I can:

 

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

 

If we're honest, we should acknowledge that drunk drivers kill and injure orders of magnitude more people every year than mass shooters and school shooters together, yet there's no hue and cry to ban automobiles. And people who drive drunk continue to be "punished" with a slap on the wrist in many courts around the country. If the gun control advocates are really interested in saving lives, why aren't they going after drunk drivers? Why aren't they proposing bans on "assault automobiles"?

[Jeep Driver]

Long before the Constitution there was the Law. 

Thou shall not murder. 

Cain did not possess an AK74, yet he murdered Abel. 

 

Most of you, if not all of you, could not list the Law nor define it nor the Commandments which define the Law. 

 

Evil people have been committing murder for 10s of thousands of years. There is nothing new under the sun. 

 

 

 

The National Guard is NOT a well regulated militia. Any organization which can be called by any govt, state or fed,  to be used against the People is not the militia spoken of in the Constitution, the People are the militia. 

 

Communism does not exist. I find it interesting that any society which does not conform to the Roman-Western world view is labeled Communist. You might want to give that some thought. 

[Eagle]

52 minutes ago, rokinn said:

What I haven't heard in this discussion is one IOTA of a sense of RESPONSIBILITY on the part of those of the gun rights/2nd amendment persuasion on how to prevent the now on average daily mass shootings (4 or more killed at one time in one place) in this country.

 

 

Maybe because your statistic is so wildly inflated that it would make even Moms Demand Action blush. They claim 223 mass shootings from 2009 through 2019. My numbers show 81 legitimate mass shooting incidents in that time period. And you claim there is -- on average -- one mass shooting EVERY DAY? For eleven years that would be 4,018 mass shootings. Didn't happen.

 

Responsibility? How am I responsible because a whacked out kid murdered his mother and stole her guns to go shoot up his elementary school (Sandy Hook)? How am I responsible because Broward County cooked up a deal between the school district and the sheriff's office to systematically under-charge and under-report criminal activity in the schools in order to make it appear that the schools were cutting down on crime (Parkland)? How am I responsible because the Air Force failed to report a courts martial conviction that should have prevented a nut job from buying a firearm (Sutherland Springs)? How am I responsible because a guy who had NO criminal history or record and NO record of psychiatric problems decided to shoot a bunch of people from a hotel window (Harvest Festival)?

 

I had nothing to do with any of those. There is nothing I could have done to prevent any of them. At least two of them (Parkland and Sutherland Springs) might well have been prevented if various governmental entities had done their jobs. But they didn't. It's questionable whether or not Sandy Hook could have been prevented, and it's NOT questionable that Las Vegas could NOT have been prevented. So what's MY responsibility? Why should I be punished for things over which I had no control or influence, while those who DID have some control failed miserably in doing their jobs in two (maybe three) of those four incidents?

 

It's widely stated (but I don't know how accurately) that there are over 80,000 gun laws in this country. How can any sane person think that passing one MORE law, that makes something that's probably already in violation of three or five or ten of those existing laws, even more illegal is going to solve anything? There's a law that makes it illegal to lie on the federal BATFE Form 4473 that everyone has to fill out when buying a gun from a dealer. I don't have the numbers at hand but, a few years ago, the Attorney General was asked why only about 2 percent of the known cases of people lying on that form were followed up and prosecuted. His answer was "We don't have the resources." So the government doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws we already have -- the laws that are intended to accomplish just what you want to accomplish -- but that same government thinks that another law (that they obviously don't have the resources to enforce) will magically solve the [alleged] problem.

 

That's what we call insanity.

[Warren Mohler]

1 hour ago, rokinn said:

I've owned a firearm since the age of 10 and own several now.  I have an expert ranking for the M14 and the M16 from the military.  I can hit small targets in rapid succession from the standing position with an open site AR 15 at 300 yards (no I don't own one).  My brother has his FFl and my father before him.  What I haven't heard in this discussion is one IOTA of a sense of RESPONSIBILITY on the part of those of the gun rights/2nd amendment persuasion on how to prevent the now on average daily mass shootings (4 or more killed at one time in one place) in this country.  All I hear is it's MY RIGHT (based on how you would like to read the 2nd amendment) that is paramount and the paranoia that Tyrannosaurus Democratis will render me defenseless based on some narcissistic Ramboism and nihilistic orientation.  And yes, I will match my knowledge of fascism, totalitarianism, communism, with anyone on this site.   I got my Safe Hunter training and badge (which I still have) from the NRA.  The NRA now is just a front group that is part of the Military Industrial Complex and has nothing but money at it's base of priorities and lip service to......gun rights??

 

The notion that we have laws for murder and yet we still have murders misses the point entirely.  Murder happens, imagine if it weren't against the law, would there be more or less of them.  With laws against it, at least there is a way to hold those accountable who commit it and remove them from society.  Gun rights are a problem for society today and comparisons to the "letter" of the constitution based on then is to look at the world through a straw.  Is the National Guard a well regulated militia as compared to the average citizen today?  At this point the polarization on the issue blinds everyone to coming up with a solution that prevents the needless slaughter of the innocent on a daily basis.  What is the cost of freedom?  Ask the 6 year old at Sandy Hook, or the music lover at a concert in Las Vegas. 

Good point! The  gun is not the problem, if the Gov. took every KNOWN LEGAL gun away tomorrow how many hundreds of thousand of them would be left  and in whose hands? As responsible gun owners what can we do to keep gun out of the hands of the nut bags that are committing such crimes? We can't. What CAN we do? We can't stop adults that have snapped and do these things, it's going to happen. Can we teach our kid's moral values, that ALL live's matter, the difference between right and wrong? Yes we can. I drive a school bus for a living, every day I am responsible for transporting as many as 140 elementary and high school students. It is disturbing to see the lack of guidance that a lot of them show. My largest stop is approx. 30 students I approach this stop and they are spread across half a city block all looking at their phones, that phone and whats on it is more important than the person to their left and right. Antisocial? What can we do? A lot of my kid's are great people and show a lot of promise a lot are not. Why, it's beyond me. Is the percentage of good and bad the same  as it was fifty years ago just that many more of us? Gun control won't stop it, education and solid family values I believe will go a long way to help. In the mean time as the owner of many firearms including an AR15 I am doing what I believe to be the best thing by having them locked up all but one just in case it's needed. I don't have kids in the house but I fell this is a start on my part to keep my weapons where they belong and urge all gun owners to do the same. If you can afford an AR15 or any firearm you should afford a safe place to keep it.

[mjeff87]

55 minutes ago, Eagle said:

 

Maybe because your statistic is so wildly inflated that it would make even Moms Demand Action blush. They claim 223 mass shootings from 2009 through 2019. My numbers show 81 legitimate mass shooting incidents in that time period. And you claim there is -- on average -- one mass shooting EVERY DAY? For eleven years that would be 4,018 mass shootings. Didn't happen.

 

Responsibility? How am I responsible because a whacked out kid murdered his mother and stole her guns to go shoot up his elementary school (Sandy Hook)? How am I responsible because Broward County cooked up a deal between the school district and the sheriff's office to systematically under-charge and under-report criminal activity in the schools in order to make it appear that the schools were cutting down on crime (Parkland)? How am I responsible because the Air Force failed to report a courts martial conviction that should have prevented a nut job from buying a firearm (Sutherland Springs)? How am I responsible because a guy who had NO criminal history or record and NO record of psychiatric problems decided to shoot a bunch of people from a hotel window (Harvest Festival)?

 

I had nothing to do with any of those. There is nothing I could have done to prevent any of them. At least two of them (Parkland and Sutherland Springs) might well have been prevented if various governmental entities had done their jobs. But they didn't. It's questionable whether or not Sandy Hook could have been prevented, and it's NOT questionable that Las Vegas could NOT have been prevented. So what's MY responsibility? Why should I be punished for things over which I had no control or influence, while those who DID have some control failed miserably in doing their jobs in two (maybe three) of those four incidents?

 

It's widely stated (but I don't know how accurately) that there are over 80,000 gun laws in this country. How can any sane person think that passing one MORE law, that makes something that's probably already in violation of three or five or ten of those existing laws, even more illegal is going to solve anything? There's a law that makes it illegal to lie on the federal BATFE Form 4473 that everyone has to fill out when buying a gun from a dealer. I don't have the numbers at hand but, a few years ago, the Attorney General was asked why only about 2 percent of the known cases of people lying on that form were followed up and prosecuted. His answer was "We don't have the resources." So the government doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws we already have -- the laws that are intended to accomplish just what you want to accomplish -- but that same government thinks that another law (that they obviously don't have the resources to enforce) will magically solve the [alleged] problem.

 

That's what we call insanity.

 

:mic drop:

 

/end of discussion

 

(no offense rokinn)

[Manche757]

Not enough people are dying. I live have lived in Virginia most of my life. Lee Boyd Malvo randomly shot up several people in the Washington, DC  area. Not enough people died. My undergraduate years were spent at VA Tech. At the time of that shooting, it was largest mass shooting. Not enough people died. My longterm city of residence, Virginia Beach, suffered a mass shooting at a city government building. Not enough people died. I have had only one family member shot (who did not die) Not enough people have died. I have had only one business associate shot (he did not die). Not enough people have died. All innocent victims. Not enough people died.

 

There is a collective problem.  No one wants to own the problem. It is NOT the fault of responsible gun owners who will be the likely losers in this particlar pissing contest, if a solution is not reached soon. Stonewalling and denial will only hasten restrictions for those of us that want to own more than our grandfather's shotgun.  Good solutions evade us but will only come with cool headed negotiations. But first, many, many more people need to die and then something will be done about it.

[Manche757]

I think Rokinn's  kickass comments are headed in the right direction. Kudos for your comments. You get my vote for spokesman for continuing ownership of firearms.

[amsuco]

On February 18, 2020 at 10:00 PM, Jeep Driver said:

 

 

 

I have no intention of doing that to my postal, but that is pretty darn cool!  Thank you.