Latest School Shooting

[Hikergirl]

does that law somehow make life more difficult for you. Is there a reason you would ever need a high capacity mag

No not at all (I said I don't have a problem with it in my pp)
I just don't see the point in feel good measures being done just to appease those screaming for things to be done. The problem with feel good measures is, they don't work and when they don't work the screaming starts again for more to be done. I'm more for keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them over regulating the "object" or more regulations for law abiding citizens who are not going around committing mass murder, or who don't have plans to do that ever.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm not sure how the language could be construed as a state of mind rather than a right. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

With all due respect, that is not the 2nd Amendment... "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." I don't think you can just look at half the wording and say what it means.

I would support that, but our licenses are renewed every 10 years, a lot can happen in that amount of time. That would have to change.

Would it? If something changes in between renewals, then restamp the license.

 

[Hikergirl]

With all due respect, that is not the 2nd Amendment... "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." I don't think you can just look at half the wording and say what it means.


Would it? If something changes in between renewals, then restamp the license.

LOL, I suppose that would be much easier.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

And furthermore, even in areas where guns are recommended for safety against polar bears-explain to me how requirements of training and liscencing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods and band on silencers and high capacity magazines would effect the users?

Mandatory waiting periods aren't going to stop someone who wants to commit a heinous act from doing so. How many cases have you heard where someone legally buys a gun and immediately goes out and kills someone? It could however negatively effect someone who is going hunting immediately, or had a wild animal on their property that needs to be dealt with immediately, or someone going camping in an area with bears or other wild animals.

Even with hearing protection, guns are loud and can sometimes cause hearing damage. If I have an immediate threat and need to use a gun, I may not have the time to put in my hearing protection. If other people are nearby when I have to shoot my gun without notice, their hearing could be damaged. A suppressor doesn't completely eradicate the sound, it merely makes it low enough to not cause hearing damage.

Banning high capacity mags could put people in danger if they are responding to a threat because they have less rounds to immediately use. Magazines take up space and add extra weight so carrying multiples may not always be an option, and could leave someone in a life or death situation.

Training and licensing both cost money, and I wouldn't want gun ownership to be unduly cost prohibitive beyond purchasing a gun. I'm not sure how licensing would necessarily prevent gun crime as guns are so easily found illegally and are often cheaper. I imagine if the fees for licensing became too high, many people would resort more to procuring weapons illegally. I'm not against training and would like to see more of that, though I don't think it would do anything for intentional gun crimes. It could reduce accidental gun injuries and deaths though.

Please explain to me how each of these things would stop intentional homicides?

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

With all due respect, that is not the 2nd Amendment... "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." I don't think you can just look at half the wording and say what it means.

My response was to a poster who said the wording of the second amendment was more of a state of mind than a right. I was merely pointing out that the 2nd amendment wording clearly says "right." Whether you look at the whole of it or just the portion I quoted is irrelevant. The wording lists bearing arms as a "right."

 

[Domo]

My response was to a poster who said the wording of the second amendment was more of a state of mind than a right. I was merely pointing out that the 2nd amendment wording clearly says "right." Whether you look at the whole of it or just the portion I quoted is irrelevant. The wording lists bearing arms as a "right."

I think the problem arises from the sect of the public sighted by the wording of the 2nd Amendment in itself. If it said, "The general public" or "Citizens of these United States of America", things would be clearer.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

Is there a single gun regulation the NRA supporters can come up with to make things safer. Maybe just one idea

I'm not an NRA supporter, but hopefully you'll welcome my thoughts nonetheless. I'd like to see some basic weapons education and safety classes for everyone, that way people understand how guns work and have a better idea of how to be safe around them, whether they own guns or not. A lot of injuries and deaths from guns happen with illegally obtained guns, so training just for legal gun owners isn't enough. More education in general about guns would help people to understand them better. Better reporting to the NICS which is the system that background checks are based would help to prevent some people from getting guns. Things are supposed to be reported, but often aren't. More research done on criminal profiling to see if there are better ways to find and get people the help they need before they decide to kill. A bigger crackdown on the importation of black market guns, if possible. Harsher penalties for gun crimes when the guns were obtained illegally to hopefully reduce the number of people using illegally obtained guns.

Similar question back at you: is there a single thing you can come up with to make things safer that does not infringe on the rights of legal gun owners, who for the record, arent typically the ones to commit gun crimes?

 

[longboard55]

I'm not an NRA supporter, but hopefully you'll welcome my thoughts nonetheless. I'd like to see some basic weapons education and safety classes for everyone, that way people understand how guns work and have a better idea of how to be safe around them, whether they own guns or not. A lot of injuries and deaths from guns happen with illegally obtained guns, so training just for legal gun owners isn't enough. More education in general about guns would help people to understand them better. Better reporting to the NICS which is the system that background checks are based would help to prevent some people from getting guns. Things are supposed to be reported, but often aren't. More research done on criminal profiling to see if there are better ways to find and get people the help they need before they decide to kill. A bigger crackdown on the importation of black market guns, if possible. Harsher penalties for gun crimes when the guns were obtained illegally to hopefully reduce the number of people using illegally obtained guns.

Similar question back at you: is there a single thing you can come up with to make things safer that does not infringe on the rights of legal gun owners, who for the record, arent typically the ones to commit gun crimes?

None of the things mentioned would infringe on the rights of a gun owner, and we are doing many things outside of gun enforcement, Look at Disneyland and security, security at professional sports, concerts, airports, I was in vegas, they clearly stated guns not allowed in rooms. Do I like waiting and extra 15 minutes to get into a football game, if that is what it takes we do it and not worry about it. We are all doing our part except one group

 

[sam_gordon]

My response was to a poster who said the wording of the second amendment was more of a state of mind than a right. I was merely pointing out that the 2nd amendment wording clearly says "right." Whether you look at the whole of it or just the portion I quoted is irrelevant. The wording lists bearing arms as a "right."

My apologies for misreading your post.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

None of the things mentioned would infringe on the rights of a gun owner, and we are doing many things outside of gun enforcement, Look at Disneyland and security, security at professional sports, concerts, airports, I was in vegas, they clearly stated guns not allowed in rooms. Do I like waiting and extra 15 minutes to get into a football game, if that is what it takes we do it and not worry about it. We are all doing our part except one group

How are gun owners not doing our part? Everything you listed above applies to us as well. To clarify, your first sentence when you say "none of the things mentioned would infringe on the right of a gun owner" are you referring to the things I mentioned in the response you quoted or other things mentioned in this thread? If the latter, could you be more specific please? I just want to make sure I understand what you're referencing. Thanks.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

In fact there is discussion about requiring electric cars to make noise, as it has been shown that their silent nature cause more pedestrian accidents.

But a suppressed gun is still loader than you think. Probably loader than most gas cars. Has their been a rash of killings using suppressors? So why are they regulated?

 

[longboard55]

How are gun owners not doing our part? Everything you listed above applies to us as well. To clarify, your first sentence when you say "none of the things mentioned would infringe on the right of a gun owner" are you referring to the things I mentioned in the response you quoted or other things mentioned in this thread? If the latter, could you be more specific please? I just want to make sure I understand what you're referencing. Thanks.

None of the things you mention infringe on a gun owner. I would think most gun owners would insist and welcome firearem training and education. And the point is gun owners refuse to do anything related to guns, we can not even ban bumpstocks or selling guns to people on the no fly list. Nothing, Zip, Nada.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

None of the things you mention infringe on a gun owner. I would think most gun owners would insist and welcome firearem training and education. And the point is gun owners refuse to do anything related to guns, we can not even ban bumpstocks or selling guns to people on the no fly list. Nothing, Zip, Nada.

The “No Fly List” is a non starter for me. People are placed on it without due process, how is that even an idea to be taken seriously?
ETA- honestly bumpstocks are a bit ridiculous and I own one. They’re more difficult to use than most think, it doesn’t magically make a semi auto full auto. But in giving them up how about we do some negotiating. National conceal carry?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I would support that, but our licenses are renewed every 10 years, a lot can happen in that amount of time. That would have to change.

It could be handled a couple of ways. Either roll it in gradually, or make a deadline that would require one to either update their license by a specific date, or be banned from private party sales until such time they renew.

In the event your status changed to prohibited, your license would be confiscated and you would need to renew as “prohibited”.

 

[longboard55]

The “No Fly List” is a non starter for me. People are placed on it without due process, how is that even an idea to be taken seriously?
ETA- honestly bumpstocks are a bit ridiculous and I own one. They’re more difficult to use than most think, it doesn’t magically make a semi auto full auto. But in giving them up how about we do some negotiating. National conceal carry?

told you so, the fact someone killed 55 people with them does not matter, to gun owners

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

None of the things you mention infringe on a gun owner. I would think most gun owners would insist and welcome firearem training and education. And the point is gun owners refuse to do anything related to guns, we can not even ban bumpstocks or selling guns to people on the no fly list. Nothing, Zip, Nada.

So are you then asking specifically what gun rights we are willing to negotiate on? I'd be open to discussion on that if anyone could show me how it would positively reduce gun violence. As @3men and a boat pointed out, the No Fly Zone list ignores due process so I don't think that's a good way to deny people gun ownership. Personally, I could care less about bump stocks, but I doubt banning them would really make a difference as someone can basically do the same thing with a belt loop... Seriously.

The issue I have with people on the other side only wanting to focus on more gun regulations is that they won't realistically make a difference in regards to violent crime numbers. All they will do is restrict the rights of legal gun owners, so what's the point? As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, there are ways around so many of the gun restrictions being proposed, which negates the effect that any of these regulations might have.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

With all due respect, that is not the 2nd Amendment... "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." I don't think you can just look at half the wording and say what it means.

Sure you can, because anyone with a basic understanding of the English language can understand the first half is basically editorial.

If it said, “The national umbrella parade being necessary to the morale of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear umbrellas shall not be infringed”, would you argue only those participating in the parade had the right to umbrellas?

From a purely actionable point of view, the 2nd Amendment may as well say, “blah blah blah blah blah, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. I mean seriously, if the 2nd Amendment in its entirety were on a 3rd grade English test followed by the question, “to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong?”, the only correct answer would be, “the people”.

The militia “could” possibly be called the why, but it is absolutely NOT the who.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

told you so, the fact someone killed 55 people with them does not matter, to gun owners

Can you name another instance of someone using a bumpstock? For that matter had you even heard of them before that? What about suppressors? I’ll wait while you google it.
It’s not that gun owners are aposed to things just because, it’s that we seem to be the scapegoats. Their are probably 100 million gun owners in America, 1 idiot used a bump-stock.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

told you so, the fact someone killed 55 people with them does not matter, to gun owners

Go back & reread. He’s suggesting a BAN on bumpstocks in exchange for consistency on concealed carry laws.

Edit: we should also note the Vegas shooter used a combination of guns (with and without bumpstocks), in both .223 and the much more powerful .308 caliber. Due to the extreme distance, I wouldn’t be surprised to find the majority of the fatalities were from the .308’s - most of which would not be considered “assault weapons” under any of the proposed bans.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I think the problem arises from the sect of the public sighted by the wording of the 2nd Amendment in itself. If it said, "The general public" or "Citizens of these United States of America", things would be clearer.

I don’t think you can be much clearer than “the people”.