|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 30, 2012, 11:13 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
XFire, I don't think you read my position... I don't want more. I want less, but more effective with the real issues. Extremism in most forms is a tough way to do anything, and only fuels the fire and the ignorance on both sides.
Glenn, your idea for WLP is something along my lines of thinking. Doing something for change, admitting the current way is broken. I enjoyed reading that, I think you got where I am coming from. My only hope is that more can also. |
December 30, 2012, 11:16 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 631
|
I know I am in the minority here but if it helped safeguard my right to have guns I would live with them making it more difficult to acquire one. Lets say a law was passed to require all gun sales, private or through dealers, must always have a background check ran. It would be annoying but I could deal with the extra hassle if it ended all this anti-gun crap. I don't see that as infringing on my rights since I could still acquire guns. The main thing it would accomplish is making it a little harder for people that can't pass a background check to get a firearm which I am perfectly fine with. The way I see it is if you did something that makes you unable to pass a background check then you gave up your 2nd Amendment rights when you did it. I'm not saying that I think this exact law should be passed. Just using it as an example.
|
December 30, 2012, 11:26 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2012
Posts: 1,031
|
I find it hard to understand how a madman taking innocent lives on a rampage with no respect for his own survival and the rights of law abiding citizens to arm themselves are in any way related and refuse to give up any of my rights so that those panicked by this tragedy can have the illusion of safety.
|
December 30, 2012, 11:29 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The NICS issue that we under report dangerous individuals (Cho at VT is a classic case). Even those who have been adjudicated don't get reported at times. That process should be cleaned up.
An absolutist case that the dangerously mentally ill should have free access to firearms is an interesting test case of the 2nd Amend. Loughner and Cho might have been stopped or slowed down. Should they have been?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
December 30, 2012, 11:30 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
Dude, abide! Read the thread, I'm not knee-jerking, I'm firmly against it.
This is why I started this thread. These automatic assumptions that I am anti-gun or that I want *more* laws, these near automated responses of "I need my liberty" rather than a thoughtful discussion of how change could possibly occur are damaging to both sides... |
December 30, 2012, 11:33 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
On CBS's Face the Nation this morning, DiDi Meyers predicted that AWB II will not pass and as most of us know, she worked in the Clinton Administration and for Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Although she did predict, that maybe, some further restrictions to decrease the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, might take place. Which, is basically our sides position, as long as any checks, ect would be meaningful and reasonable. I honestly believe that the last several years of court victories have greatly angered the anti-gun crowd and their recent outburst of extremist rhetoric was born out of frustration and feelings of impotence. The recent decision that Illinois enact a CCW Law, really frustrated them, but there was little for them to do, but stew. The recent tragedy gave them an opening to lash out. A drowning victim thrashes the hardest right before the end, hence the outburst from the antis. If we stick to our guns, both metaphorically and literally, I believe we will prevail. If we continue to present our facts with logic and decorum, as most of us have been that is.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
December 30, 2012, 11:34 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,562
|
Quote:
I think I understand what your saying and that we need to address issues other then guns like the mental health issues but, that is not what the bans and restrictions from the anti's are addressing. They are going for gun control not looking into fixing problems that make any kind of sense.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member |
|
December 30, 2012, 11:34 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2012
Posts: 1,031
|
I'm just saying, I don't understand how the views to keep gun ownership as they are are considered "extreme," and refuse to give them up.
I think this is a mental health debate, not a gun control debate. We don't do enough to treat/identify people who are clearly a threat to themselves and others... and don't take warning signs seriously when they do present themselves. |
December 30, 2012, 11:37 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
Here's a proposal... Keep in mind I do NOT want *more* laws, this is an idea for an alternative to, let's just say, waiting periods, mag restrictions, and "scary parts" laws.
Say a well made gun safety course was required, just once, before being able to buy a gun. Something along the lines of a hunters safety course, but with a focus of safe storage, handling, and use of firearms. I think this would be a reasonable thing to do to replace a slice of the cake that was previously taken. I think it would be a good thing, much better than the generic gun safety insert that rarely gets read by the people who need it most. And please, before spouting about "we don't need no more gun laws" keep in mind I am not suggesting additional, I am suggesting replacing current RESTRICTIONS with safety training here. |
December 30, 2012, 11:43 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
As a side note, I sis not start this over any specific shooting, and this is not specifically about mental health. This is accumulated frustration with both sides, and the fact that in this highly political world, if an inch is given, the mile is regulated. I hate the fact that "compromise" has been banned due to the use of the word as a way to rob freedoms. I hate the fact that most pro-gun arguments I hear at a local level are along the lines of Gollum ideals, rather than thoughtful ideas.
Yes, I do believe mental health is a facet that cannot be ignored when it comes to anything, not just guns. But it shouldn't be a diversionary tactic to attempt to not discuss our current, and our possible, gun laws. |
December 30, 2012, 12:06 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 395
|
To reach the "middle ground" you speak of would require an infringement of a right which shall not be infringed. The fact is, guns are seen by most as purely a means of taking life... just as cars are seen as a means to get from point A to point B. Although guns can be used for sport and cars for killing, they are defined by their intended purpose. Now we must ask... who in our society should be allowed to possess the means to take life? Oh wait... we all do. Whether by illegally obtaining an easy means of life-taking (bombs, guns), or by the use of a knife... we all do. So instead of trying to fine tune who gets what means of taking life through the states influence.. why not let freedom ring and allow mankind's natural tendency to protect the innocent flourish? Why not try and propagate a societal embrace of responsible gun ownership? Id feel much safer in a society armed to the teeth than in one like ours.. with "gun free zones" and a tendency to see guns as evil.
__________________
Amateurs think equipment, Students think techniques, Experts think tactics. |
December 30, 2012, 12:29 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
I suggest asking this thread be closed, then asking your question(s) in a different way. If I'm reading your intentions right, you want to toss out the extremes and concentrate on how to win the middle ground. |
|
December 30, 2012, 12:36 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
Not looking to win anything, just wanting to get past the extremes and discuss reality. Why would this thread need to be closed? I stand behind everything I have said, and I don't think I am being the least bit unreasonable.
|
December 30, 2012, 01:02 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2007
Posts: 1,204
|
People were murdered long before the invention of firearms. My point is that if firearms were totally eliminated murders would continue. You would definitely see a decrease in the "murders committed with the use of a assault weapon" column but you would see a increase of murders committed with other weapons like clubs, spears, knives, strangulation, poison, etc. There is nothing, and I do mean nothing that an individual, organization, or politician can do to stop murder.
|
December 30, 2012, 01:04 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,137
|
My big question when I talk with anti-gun folks is simply to ask: What are you willing to give up? It's a part of the compromise process. If I give up something, then the other side must give up something that is equally as dear to them, but which won't affect me.
No one can ever come up with what they're willing to concede. For myself, I'm not willing to concede anything. I want the full Bill of Rights. All of them. |
December 30, 2012, 01:12 PM | #41 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
I'm all in favor of thoughtful ideas, BUT they have to be ideas that don't violate the Constitution or, as far as I am concerned, they are non-starters. So far, all of your ideas represent infringements on the 2nd Amendment. I cannot support them for that reason, and that's not a "knee-jerk" reaction, that's a position forged from approximately 60 years (I don't count the first decade or so of my life, because at that tender age I didn't have any understanding of the Constitution) of respect for the Constitution, and 50 years of living under the recognition that I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. |
|
December 30, 2012, 01:22 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Why close it?
Probably because after 8 posts, it's even more unclear exactly what it is you want. You lost me here 100%... If you don't want to "win" anything, then what's the point of any discussion? You don't seem to be open to what people are saying to you and your mind already seems made up that those of us that view any type of "gun control" as "control" and thus "extremists". In my case, I admit, I'm one of those nutty "extremists". Nothing anyone can say or do is going to change my mind that "gun control" has nothing to do with "guns" and everything to do with "control"... |
December 30, 2012, 01:27 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
Shall not be infriged....pretty plain and simple to me. If that makes me an extremist then so are were the founding fathers.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
December 30, 2012, 01:29 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
Problem is, we probably don't have that option. While gun sentiment, both positive and negative changed little after the previous numerous mass shootings, this last one involving defenseless children has had a definite impact. Only a year ago the majority of folks in America thought we had enough gun regulations and control, but in the last few weeks that has reversed. Being a country that is supposed to be governed by a majority, we are in trouble. All we can hope for is that this snowball will quit rollin' and intelligent minds will prevail over knee-jerk reactions. |
|
December 30, 2012, 01:32 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Anti-rights "compromises always include the following - "more for us, less for you." There IS no compromise, just "We'll take less than we originally said if you promise to get down and lick our feet."
Want to compromise like they do? We get the GCA of '68 repealed, and they can keep Piers Morgan. Quote:
But one thing we are not is a pure democracy. Last edited by armoredman; December 30, 2012 at 01:39 PM. |
|
December 30, 2012, 01:34 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
My position is improving an already bad situation. My position isn't that more gun control is needed. I don't want to infringe on the second amendment, I want to free up what has already been infringed upon. I would merely like to talk about responsible ways to do it, promoting gun ownership, and promoting gun safety. If all that is presented opposing gun control is the absolute abolishment of any oversight on guns, then reality is being missed. The fact is, gun control advocates are not going to poof out of existence any more than guns would if they had their way. Faced with that reality, what is so offensive about discussing real solutions, rather than this all or nothing attitude?
|
December 30, 2012, 01:38 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
People look at things that happen and they blame the guns and I don't think you dispute that, I think you have been pretty clear about that... So the answer to your question is IMHO (no sarcasm intended) in your own position.. The guns simply aren't the problem.. So why are we trying to fix something that isn't the problem? The real problem as I see it is:
Lastly as a retired soldier with tons of good and bad experiences, I can tell you guns aren't by any means the biggest threat to you, your family or your community. It is beyond the scope of this forum but a out of control scientist in a home lab could do way more than any gun or all the guns ever created... The only effective solutions are to be armed lawfully, to get rid of gun free zones and have government encouraged gun use and exposure combined with appropriate safety classes. Treat the mentally ill more effectively (without spying) and understand more people in our nation means more potential dangers.
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
December 30, 2012, 01:46 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Quote:
I'll say it again - I did nothing wrong, and MY property and rights should not be forfeit for someone else's criminal act. Punish the criminal, not the inanimate objects. |
|
December 30, 2012, 01:57 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
|
Did I say somewhere that we as gun owners need to be punished for the crimes of others? Did I say that guns should be banned, destroyed, more regulated, or similar?
This is exactly what I'm talking about, why is it so hard to actually discuss the issue, rather than just barfing out what has been said many times before? The fact is, guns are already highly regulated, I am asking to talk about ways to loosen up those restrictions, without sacrificing safety, and so far it doesn't seem like anyone is wanting to do anything but promote near anarchist views, like that's going to make the problem go away by magic. Are there any ideas here, or is it just all or nothing like I see everywhere else? I'm talking about reality here, not some magical world where gun laws or guns can be removed with a lightswitch. I hope to see talk of HOW change can occur, not just that "gun laws are bad, mkay". |
December 30, 2012, 02:03 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
In your first post, first sentence, you said we were all insane. What response did you expect?
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
|