# What if gun control is really the One's second agenda?



## Shrek

While talking over coffee the other day some of the guys offered this possible scenario as what we are currently facing.

While most everyone is fighting for or against gun control , many on both sides agree its unlikely sweeping changes will be achieved , however there are sweeping changes occurring in two sectors____domestic production/sales and local tax collection directly related to the current gun control battle.

One of the LEOs in our group pointed out that even if Obama's sweeping gun control falls short as Clinton's did, he and the left can still include the retail sales and taxes paid on new purchase firearms and the $20 to $200 a year CCW fees as added tax revenues and claim that they helped bring in hundreds of millions of GDP increase as the firearms sales , many of which are U.S. made into their economic increase spin.

The LEO also estimated that nationally new CCW licensees have increased at least 400,000 and that number is still growing.

I am satisfied that the left does want gun control however if the LEO is right and it fails to reach as far as they wish, I can see them trying to hang their hat on the GDP and CCW license tax/fee aspects for future votes.

So what do you think of this possible perspective?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What if gun control is really the One's second agenda?



Just say* NO*


> left can still include the retail sales and taxes paid on new purchase firearms and the $20 to $200 a year CCW fees as added tax revenues


None of those are *Federal*, other than the 10% Excise Tax on all guns and ammo, which is paid by the manufacturer

The "boost to the GDP" is minute compared to the total economy
Your LEO friend is overthinking things, and making a lot of incorrect assumptions


----------



## simi-steading

My thoughts are I am going to own what I own, and I'm really not worried about what the laws are.....

I'm going by the constitution..... anything they pass is against it....


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

could the gun control scramble be a convenient distraction to get the pressure of a hole bunch of other issues , it could be neither side wants to let a tragedy go to waste political

I do encourage everyone to in your next round of letters and emails to reps to tell them to get off their duffs and stop talking guns and fix the budget in a meaningful way that addresses this nations debt , (or we will be needing all the guns we can get when they push this nation to financial failure and collapse of state.) _ok leave this part out of the letter maybe_

the fall of Rome plunged the empire into many many years of very bad living with much evil and death.


----------



## BACOG

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> could the gun control scramble be a convenient distraction to get the pressure of a hole bunch of other issues


We have a winner!! It is a proven fact that when a president is failing in one or more areas he needs a war to distract the people, and to boost his approval. 

President Obama has declared war on the American people to distract from his failed policies.


----------



## Melissa

I think the gun/ammo companies probably love it when politicians start talking gun control...


----------



## Hairsheep

Its obvious to me this current President is ALL about division.
And he would love us to be like his homeland: Kenya, a third world country.
THEN, we will be equal with the rest of the world, instead of "better".
Because, you know, we can not be better than anybody else....Its so unfair!
LOL!


----------



## joebill

BACOG said:


> We have a winner!! It is a proven fact that when a president is failing in one or more areas he needs a war to distract the people, and to boost his approval.
> 
> President Obama has declared war on the American people to distract from his failed policies.


First prez to declare a "war on prosperity"....Joe


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

Hairsheep said:


> Its obvious to me this current President is ALL about division.


both dem and rep parties are getting very good at division , don't look at what you have in common with your neighbor concentrate on what divides you , thats thier motto , if you can't put some one in their box in 30 seconds they must be broken.

some of us need to look at each issue on the merits , and not a party line 

what i don't get is why more people haven't gone third party yet , i know the system is rigged against us , but people can vote 3rd party , i think to much fear from both dem and rep is placed on if you vote 3rd party they can't win and your giving the enemy a leg up.
but in local races , starting small , working up is where 3rd party can make a difference , but we can't play the dirty games that the other 2 have learned from each other , back and forth , we need real people with real answers that may not be very popular but that have a ring of truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> why more people haven't gone third party yet


There haven't been any 3rd party candidates ENOUGH people liked to make a difference


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

a third party is needed , how to get it is the question , think of the game change even ten seats in each house would be , it would be the end to super majorities


----------



## Hollowdweller

Obama wanted to avoid gun control. Don't you remember the incident when Rahm Emmanuel told Holder to shut the (edited) up about it? Google it.

I predict nothing will pass. Number of senate dems vulnerable in 2014.

Here is the greatest danger to us in the gun community. That the gun industry and their focus on assault weapons and end times survival scenarios will keep spawning mass shootings and eventually public opinion will turn against gun owners.

If the gun community ignores gun crime and mass shootings and instead focusese on whatever politician is in office eventually we will see serious gun control.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Obama wanted to avoid gun control


He wanted to avoid BLAME for it, but he WANTS it



> If the gun community ignores gun crime and mass shootings and instead focusese on whatever politician is in office eventually we will see serious gun control.


We don't ignore "gun crime"
People with guns STOP "gun crime"

You're just spouting the anti gunner's rhetoric


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

gun owners do need to be cautious in these times 

but do not accept that this should be forced on us, families and friends should absolutely be able to transfer guns between them 

can you imagine the paper work they would create so that i could loan a good friend's son a gun so he could go deer hunting the first few years till he bought his own rifle. that young man is now in ROTC , why shouldn't i have lent him a rifle to get started


----------



## plowjockey

$80 million dollars in CCW permits, is not much of a GDP blip, in a $15 trillion dollar economy. 

Guns were not an issue, in the 2008 elections and barely an issue in 2012, non existent, if it were not for Aurora and Sandy Hook.

They know there is also liability, in being a "Gun candidate", at the national level, since there are plenty of Democratic gun owners.


----------



## littlejoe

I don't think so. If I offered a service or product, and had a loyal customer base, but did not provide at some poiint? Why do you think they would not turn to the first provider of a wanted product or service?

I'm in business of providing a service, and I do my best of being the first call they make, and being available. It's a part of business.

I had a ruger lcr ordered since before Christmas. I cancelled it last week, I'm exploring different options/guns now, that are in front of me.



Melissa said:


> I think the gun/ammo companies probably love it when politicians start talking gun control...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> $80 million dollars in CCW permits, is not much of a GDP blip, in a $15 trillion dollar economy


It wouldn't even be counted since it's just another Govt fee.
Those dollars were already counted once


----------



## Hollowdweller

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> gun owners do need to be cautious in these times
> 
> but do not accept that this should be forced on us, families and friends should absolutely be able to transfer guns between them
> 
> can you imagine the paper work they would create so that i could loan a good friend's son a gun so he could go deer hunting the first few years till he bought his own rifle. that young man is now in ROTC , why shouldn't i have lent him a rifle to get started


That's why it won't pass.


----------



## Hollowdweller

Bearfootfarm said:


> He wanted to avoid BLAME for it, but he WANTS it
> 
> 
> 
> We don't ignore "gun crime"
> People with guns STOP "gun crime"
> 
> You're just spouting the anti gunner's rhetoric


 
Dude I was probably cracking off rounds out of my mauser when you were in diapers.:flameproofundies:

I probably have WAY more guns than you will ever have too:nana:

What I'm saying is we gun owners have been lucky so far. There have been a large number of gun crimes and mass shootings over the last 10 years and only now is public opinion shifting against us.

Part of the democratic majority at any time consists of rural democrats so even though the majority of the public supports stronger gun control even when the dems control the house and senate there is not the will for anything really restrictive.

I mean Patrick Lehey is pretty liberal but he's pro gun. 

We were doing pretty well up till Newtown. Something about shooting little kids execution style with an assault weapon really grabs the public.

But now the spotlight is on. Do we want to be all about walking around with military looking guns and speculating about SHTF and what round has the best stopping power?? Or do we want to be about hunting and shooting tin cans with your kids and HS and college shooting teams and stuff like that??

I'm saying we can enjoy our hobby without presenting a target to the media and anti gunners and there are some things we can do to prevent crazy people from getting guns and shooting up the place.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

what needs to happen is that gun owners need to stop trying to say i am a gun owner , but i don't see the need for X style of gun , being a gun owner gives you credibility to the unknowing then provides for the anti gunner just the evidence they were looking for.

Newtown was clearly a disaster all the way around for everyone involved or feeling it in some way, but new town wasn't a shooter with an "assault rifle" shooting little kids execution style. the "assault rifle " was found in the car unused it was a shooting committed with multiple hand guns.

yes we need to be very careful who we sell to and not to present targets to the media 

have there been more gun crimes in the past ten years , very much the opposite hand guns have and will continue to make up the largest percentage of gun crime in the US they are just very convenient to carry and conceal for criminals , the past decade has seen a significant decrease in the number of homicides by hand gun according to us doj data the years after 1998 show an average to 4000 less per year than during the 1990s http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27

so what has changed , is the 24 hour and internet national media coverage 

the US has seen a steady decline in crime for 20 years , but you would never know it watching the news 
while at the same time seeing a steady increase in gun ownership and background checks 

the majority have no idea , what it actually does take to buy a gun , how regulated the industry is , or even what they are talking about when they talk about guns , neither does congress , the vice president , or the media , they regularly say absolutely off the wall things that let you know they haven't a clue. vise pres is a prime example of this lack of knowledge and he claims to own and use guns , this is the kind of thing that give credibility in the eyes of the ignorant while the knowing can see he is talking out his rear.

talk of end times makes most everyone uneasy and should be avoided , and i am the first one who will tell you to be prepared because bad things do happen , to often however people fixate on the gun side of preparation understandably so , a new gun is way cooler than cases of toilet paper , 50 pounds bags of rice , canned goods and 6 gallon water jugs. 

but as gun owners we need to avoid slandering or selling out each other based on action type , stock type , magazine capacity , color , caliber , or barrel length. 

the "evil black assault rifle " is one of the most used competitive target guns in the US today. one only needs to look down the line at a high power rifle competition to see this , even the competition air rifles are being made to look and handle like a AR-15 

even bench rest guns are taking on the ergonomics of the ar-15 in the tube gun


----------



## diamondtim

As GCP said, the Newtown shooter didn't use the AR-15. The attack on that weapon platform was PRE-PLANNED by the anti-gun crowd and the mainstream media.

The tragedy of the last four mass shootings was the fact that each shooter was known, by authorities (teachers, administrators, doctors, psychiatrists, etc.) of having severe mental issues that were not dealt with, but brushed aside without any accountability. The ACLU led the attacks on the mental hospitals in the 1950's through the 1980's that eventually made almost impossible to institutionalize someone against their will. The mentally ill don't think they're ill at all. Mass shootings will continue until we have an effective way of helping the mentally ill.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

diamondtim said:


> Mass shootings will continue until we have an effective way of helping the mentally ill.


or an effective way to stop one before the shooting goes from a shooting to mass shooting , i know the definition of mas shooting is kind of a moving target these days but definition aside , how could we stop a shooter in say ,,,,under a minute?


----------



## littlejoe

Your about as far behind as the media, and about as naive. Naive isn't a good description... deception defines it better.



Hollowdweller said:


> We were doing pretty well up till Newtown. Something about shooting little kids execution style with an assault weapon really grabs the public.


----------



## littlejoe

In whatever manner of force is necessary, including the sacrifice of oneself if in fear for your life or loved ones. I hope to never be faced with such a situation, but if I am, I choose to be as prepared as possible.



GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> or an effective way to stop one before the shooting goes from a shooting to mass shooting , i know the definition of mas shooting is kind of a moving target these days but definition aside , how could we stop a shooter in say ,,,,under a minute?


----------



## diamondtim

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> or an effective way to stop one before the shooting goes from a shooting to mass shooting , i know the definition of mas shooting is kind of a moving target these days but definition aside , how could we stop a shooter in say ,,,,under a minute?


I was hoping to stop a shooting before it starts.


----------



## HuskyBoris

> What if gun control is really the One's second agenda?


I think it's pretty safe to say the shooting will start on the following day,millions of gun owners including conservatives,liberals,military personel,police officers ,alphabet govt agencys etc etc that won't stand for it.,the One and his followers as powerful as they think they are now will get a very rude awakening if they try gun abolishment,it will be like Rome burning but no one will be fiddling. google 3 %


----------



## StarreGypsy

Nobody thought Obamacare would pass, either.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

diamondtim said:


> I was hoping to stop a shooting before it starts.


I would also , but we must find a way not plagued by false positives that can destroy decent people for having not committed a crime 

part of the problem with the 1950s mental institutions was , was the terrible conditions , they were more a place to house people society wanted to forget about because they were inconvenient. Having spent some time around the handicapped most are very very nice people.

I forget the guys name , he came up with the ice pick lobotomy that is a prime example of what was broken with the old system the patients had no rights at all.

a lack of treatment because no one wants to pay for it seems to be the new issue 

the answer is that there isn't a cookie cutter answer that people need treatment , they need assessment , and they need supervision , each case is different and must be treated as such , and in order to take anyone's liberties ,or property a day in court must be an option , only a jury of ones peers can take liberty or property.

any system will leave some way for bad or disturbed people to do something bad to others , even the near absolut control of communism can't stop bad things from happening , that is were a free people with the tools of defense are the final safety.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Dude I was probably cracking off rounds out of my mauser when you were in diapers.


Maybe.........are you over 80?
It still doesn't change anything I stated



> I'm saying we can enjoy our hobby without presenting a target to the media and anti gunners and *there are some things we can do to prevent crazy people from getting guns and shooting up the place*.


More *anti* gun rhetoric, just like before.


----------



## Danaus29

Hollowdweller said:


> That's why it won't pass.


It passed in New York state. It's passed in DC. It's passed in several cities. Columbus OH used to have gun restriction laws. You are forgetting history when you say it can't pass. Sure those are on state or local levels but the RR era ban was never overturned by the US supreme court. 

As for the 2 party system, you'll have to start with how elections and candidates are funded.
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml
Since no third party candidate received 5% of the vote in 2008, only the Republican and Democratic parties are eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only their nominees may receive grants for the general election when they are nominated. Third-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election.

You think gun control was his second agenda? I think it was his first. He knew that he had to have the second term before he could actually act on it.


----------



## HuskyBoris

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe.........are you over 80?
> It still doesn't change anything I stated
> 
> 
> 
> More *anti* gun rhetoric, just like before.


lol,if he is over 80 and was cracking off rounds from a mauser when you were in diapers he was on the wrong side.:gaptooth:


----------



## whistler

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe.........are you over 80?
> It still doesn't change anything I stated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying we can enjoy our hobby without presenting a target to the media and anti gunners and there are some things we can do to prevent crazy people from getting guns and shooting up the place.
> 
> 
> 
> More *anti* gun rhetoric, just like before.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that is nothing we can or should do to *prevent* crazy people from getting guns and shooting up the place? In the matter of keeping people alive it is far preferable to be proactive than reactive because reactive equals dead. And death is, so far, irreversible. 

I have kids who attend Elementary School. I would rather see a proactive solution to keeping school shooters out of schools in addition to 'a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun' on site. If we only limit ourselves to the latter strategy, regardless of how well trained the 'good guy with the gun' is there is a greater chance that my kid will be coming out of the building in a body bag.

I have guns and even my kids have guns. I am an NRA member, I believe in the second amendment, and I believe in the notion that citizens of the US should have guns as a means of opposing government tyranny. I also believe that we, as a society, need to do everything possible to ensure that my kids and other people's kids don't leave schools in body bags.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Are you suggesting that is *nothing we can or should do* to prevent crazy people from getting guns and shooting up the place?


I'm saying all the laws in the world haven't stopped it so far, so why expect one more to make any difference?

Not ONE anti gun law being proposed would have stopped Loughner, Holmes, nor Lanza.



> I also believe that we, as a society, need to do everything possible to ensure that my kids and other people's kids *don't leave schools in body bags*.


All the emotional rhetoric and recent events aside, *statistically* , a child is more likely to drown in the bathtub or be beaten to death by their parents than to be shot at school.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

whistler said:


> Are you suggesting that is nothing we can or should do to *prevent* crazy people from getting guns and shooting up the place? In the matter of keeping people alive it is far preferable to be proactive than reactive because reactive equals dead. And death is, so far, irreversible.
> 
> I have kids who attend Elementary School. I would rather see a proactive solution to keeping school shooters out of schools in addition to 'a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun' on site. If we only limit ourselves to the latter strategy, regardless of how well trained the 'good guy with the gun' is there is a greater chance that my kid will be coming out of the building in a body bag.
> 
> I have guns and even my kids have guns. I am an NRA member, I believe in the second amendment, and I believe in the notion that citizens of the US should have guns as a means of opposing government tyranny. I also believe that we, as a society, need to do everything possible to ensure that my kids and other people's kids don't leave schools in body bags.



I will bite , what solution or legislation do you propose that had it been in place Dec 1, 2012 would have prevented sandy hook.

Maybe you have one but the solutions being proposed are tired old rhetoric that will not stop what happened , and have little to do with stopping it , just a move to not let a tragedy go to political waste , to make unknowing people feel better about "something having been done " when nothing is actually been done to address the issue only to put a fresh coat of paint on the eyesore.

so lets say you have a 1 in 300 million occurrence triennially of a bad person who has had months of planning and prep to hit a very soft target and do maximum damage in 5 minutes then off him/her self 

how do you plan to stop that, when a person is willing to kill to become armed


----------



## whistler

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm saying all the laws in the world haven't stopped it so far, so why expect one more to make any difference?


I didn't say it had to be a law, did I? Drunk driving has been against the law for a long time and yet people drove drunk with alarming frequency. It wasn't really until attitudes towards the social/cultural acceptability were changed through education (by individuals, groups, and agencies) that we began to see a marked decrease in drunk driving incidents.



> Not ONE anti gun law being proposed would have stopped Loughner, Holmes, nor Lanza.


If that were true wouldn't that be a pretty solid rationale to create more expansive and/or restrictive laws than the ones being proposed?



> All the emotional rhetoric and recent events aside, *statistically* , a child is more likely to drown in the bathtub or be beaten to death by their parents than to be shot at school.


 This is, of course, true but completely beside the point. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US with cancer being the second. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt to decrease the death rate from cancer until we have decreased the death rate from heart disease? Doesn't it make sense to decrease both?


----------



## whistler

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> I will bite , what solution or legislation do you propose that had it been in place Dec 1, 2012 would have prevented sandy hook.


I'm sure you understand that it is impossible to design obstacles guaranteed o prevent one particular event in the past. Even if I imagine a thousand road blocks it's easy to counter with "Lanza could have found a way around that".



> Maybe you have one but the solutions being proposed are tired old rhetoric that will not stop what happened , and have little to do with stopping it , just a move to not let a tragedy go to political waste , to make unknowing people feel better about "something having been done " when nothing is actually been done to address the issue only to put a fresh coat of paint on the eyesore.
> 
> so lets say you have a 1 in 300 million occurrence triennially of a bad person who has had months of planning and prep to hit a very soft target and do maximum damage in 5 minutes then off him/her self
> 
> how do you plan to stop that, when a person is willing to kill to become armed


I think if we've gotten to that point we've lost. The truth is, if we've let someone get that far along to the point where they are violently inclined and in possession of the tools to act, in a spectacular fashion, on those inclinations there is very little we can do. 

My personal thought is that we need to better identify people who are at risk of acting out on violent tendencies and intervene. This intervention can include therapy, psychiatric lock-up, and so on. It *definitely* needs to include preventing this individual from obtaining firearms of any type. In addition to existing tools that need to be better enforced (e.g. penalties for strawbuyers) one new tool (not foolproof, to be sure, but better than existing practice) is universal background checks. It makes no sense to identify a Lanza, Loughner, or any of a thousand other dangerous individuals only to allow them to *legally* buy a firearm from a friend of a friend of a friend.

What about false positives, you may ask. That is, people who are not going to act upon their violent rhetoric or tendencies and kill someone. That's tough because you don't want to impinge upon the rights of someone who has done nothing wrong. In most cases of firearm violence the perpetrator has done something wrong before that has flown under the 'radar'. Perhaps we need to tighten up the 'radar' a bit. Perhaps those who have drawn attention by scaring others as a potentially violent person need to understand this is unacceptable in society (as defined by society, the final arbiter).

I think Hollowdweller is spot on. As firearms owners and enthusiasts we need to do a far better job policing our own ranks and affirming that gun owners need to exercise restraint and good judgement. For example, tolerating those who advocate throwing away two hundred plus years of legal process and progress through open and armed rebellion because a president makes unpopular policies is 'shooting ourselves in the foot'.


----------



## deaconjim

Gun control isn't his primary objective, *control* is what he is after, and gun control is just a means to an end.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If that were true wouldn't that be a pretty solid rationale to create *more expansive and/or restrictive laws* than the ones being proposed?


I'd say the* laws* against KILLING PEOPLE are about as "restrictive" as they get
What has that PREVENTED?



> attitudes towards the social/cultural acceptability


Attitudes need to change?

Who has the "attitude" that killing kids is OK?
(Other than the occasional ONE out of several hundred MILLION?)



> universal background checks


Loughner and Holmes PASSED background checks
Lanza COULD HAVE



> As firearms owners and enthusiasts we *need to do a far better job policing our own ranks* and affirming that *gun owners need to exercise restraint and good judgement. *


MILLIONS of them do that *every day.*
You're PARROTING the *rhetoric* again


----------



## deaconjim

whistler said:


> If that were true wouldn't that be a pretty solid rationale to create more expansive and/or restrictive laws than the ones being proposed?


How did you plan to get around that whole 2nd Amendment thingy? Do you want to repeal it, or simply ignore it?


----------



## whistler

Bearfootfarm said:


> Loughner and Holmes PASSED background checks
> Lanza COULD HAVE


Current background checks don't always work, I agree. Logically the answer is to increase their sensitivity towards weeding out undesirables. 

An apt analogy can be found in driver's training. Thousands of teenagers get into automobile accidents after having gone through driver's ed. Does that mean driver's education should be discontinued? In the first place it is impossible to determine whether more accidents would have occurred in the absence of driver's ed but the real answer is that driver's education requirements should be more stringent. Indeed that is what has happened over the last 100 years or so.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

a retro fit of many schools with closed circuit cameras , good doors , and security procedures in place , with a under 5 minute response time will do more and cost less than anything being proposed.

if some one is up to no good it will make itself obvious fairly quick if being watched , but unfortunatly not much watching has been happening.

secure schools and you have a chance of stopping it , make up a bunch of laws that do nothing to passiffy people another election season and you feed the machine of government , the machine takes every ounce of control every time anything bad happens it always sells it's bigger self as the solution , even if it was the problem in the first place.

so this time it was a gun , what happens when next time it is explosives made from the wood and night soil , or gas , or any number of things a person with months or years to plan and prepare can come up with 

we had a nut job get on a city bus with a lit cigaret and a bucket of gas , how do you stop that ?

looking single minded at guns is the wrong thing , the same day as sandy hook china had a mass stabbing of school children , the US has now seen stabbings of several people from one person

the answer is good people positioned to react , buildings set up and procedures in place to contain damages 

getting all the extremely mentally ill persons help and monitoring the few of them compared to monitoring millions of gun owners makes a lot more sense

then money spent trying to track and monitor the sales , gift , transfer or inheritance of more than 300 million privately owned firearms , would go a long way to treating mental illness and tracking those that have shown signs of violence , as both of the 2012 shooters had.


----------



## wannabechef

simi-steading said:


> My thoughts are I am going to own what I own, and I'm really not worried about what the laws are.....
> 
> I'm going by the constitution..... anything they pass is against it....


What's guns?


----------



## wannabechef

Hollowdweller said:


> Obama wanted to avoid gun control. Don't you remember the incident when Rahm Emmanuel told Holder to shut the (edited) up about it? Google it.
> 
> I predict nothing will pass. Number of senate dems vulnerable in 2014.
> 
> Here is the greatest danger to us in the gun community. That the gun industry and their focus on assault weapons and end times survival scenarios will keep spawning mass shootings and eventually public opinion will turn against gun owners.
> 
> If the gun community ignores gun crime and mass shootings and instead focusese on whatever politician is in office eventually we will see serious gun control.


You are way off base...blaming a gun manufacture of spawning mass shootings because of assault rifles is like saying auto manufactures are spawning mass amounts of people to start driving under the influence of alcohol.


----------



## wannabechef

whistler said:


> Current background checks don't always work, I agree. Logically the answer is to increase their sensitivity towards weeding out undesirables.
> 
> An apt analogy can be found in driver's training. Thousands of teenagers get into automobile accidents after having gone through driver's ed. Does that mean driver's education should be discontinued? In the first place it is impossible to determine whether more accidents would have occurred in the absence of driver's ed but the real answer is that driver's education requirements should be more stringent. Indeed that is what has happened over the last 100 years or so.


Only law abiding people get background checks. Law abiding people are law abiding because they follow laws, felons do not. We have more than enough laws, we just need to enforce them. There are some 30,000 gun laws on the books...none stop people who break laws.

I could teach this to 5 year old.


----------



## whistler

deaconjim said:


> How did you plan to get around that whole 2nd Amendment thingy? Do you want to repeal it, or simply ignore it?


I am proposing that we need to do a better job keeping guns out of the hands of people who are going to use them to harm others. Nothing more and nothing less. There is a pretty long history of regulating the exercise of one's individual rights so as not to unduly impinge upon the rights (or safety) of others. The obvious example is shouting 'fire' in a crowded public space. A not so clear, but perhaps more apt, example is inciting violence in others. You have the 1st amendment protection of freedom of speech but there are recognized (by the greater society and by legal precedent) limits to that speech.

I don't advocate repealing or ignoring the 2nd amendment. I advocate using our brains to develop a solution that is palatable to non-gun owners. All it takes is a Constitutional Amendment to invalidate the 2nd amendment. IF enough people (and I think we are still a long, long way from reaching that number) in this country feel that the 2nd Amendment needs to go away, it will. We talk often about a slippery slope to confiscation, the long view real problem in my opinion is the slippery slope to a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the 2nd amendment.

As we've seen, nothing gets the anti's fired up like a school shooting. When guns and gun violence aren't in the headlines we can keep them at bay. When they are in the headline, and you can guarantee that every time a school gets shot up that will make the headlines, we will lose ground. I even believe that when school security systems stop shooters it will make the headlines, as it rightly should. Maybe the new 'assualt weapon' ban won't pass this time or even the next two times. But if this keeps happening, it will.

We, as gun owners, need to own the solution to the problem. We might win the battle of 'no new changes' now but we will lose the war of 'no more guns'.


----------



## whistler

wannabechef said:


> Only law abiding people get background checks. Law abiding people are law abiding because they follow laws, felons do not. We have more than enough laws, we just need to enforce them. There are some 30,000 gun laws on the books...none stop people who break laws.
> 
> I could teach this to 5 year old.


I'll flip it around then...what law currently on the books, if better enforced, would have prevented any of the recent shootings?


----------



## farmrbrown

whistler said:


> Current background checks don't always work, I agree. Logically the answer is to increase their sensitivity towards weeding out undesirables.
> 
> An apt analogy can be found in driver's training. Thousands of teenagers get into automobile accidents after having gone through driver's ed. Does that mean driver's education should be discontinued? In the first place it is impossible to determine whether more accidents would have occurred in the absence of driver's ed but the real answer is that driver's education requirements should be more stringent. Indeed that is what has happened over the last 100 years or so.


I won't try to change your mind, the media is putting many that have the same views all over the airways right now, complete with the emotional tug of grieving parents.
We do sympathize with their terrible losses, but this isn't being looked at logically, just emotionally.
There is logically one reason and only one for this "comprehensive" 
background check.
Just one.
The database will have legal gun owners who have purchased a gun. 
No criminals will be on it, no mentally ill, just legal gun owners in national database.
Many of us were taught from our childhood to NEVER let this happen. The only logical, next step, is confiscation, by force if necessary.
Secondly, if your overwhelming fear for your children would tempt you to let this happen, I offer you the only logical alternative to allay that fear.
Lock your child up in solitary confinement.
They will be protected at all times, and that will assure their complete safety.
Nothing short of that will give y'all the 100% safety guarantee that you desire.


----------



## wannabechef

Hollowdweller said:


> Dude I was probably cracking off rounds out of my mauser when you were in diapers.:flameproofundies:
> 
> I probably have WAY more guns than you will ever have too:nana:
> 
> What I'm saying is we gun owners have been lucky so far. There have been a large number of gun crimes and mass shootings over the last 10 years and only now is public opinion shifting against us.
> 
> Part of the democratic majority at any time consists of rural democrats so even though the majority of the public supports stronger gun control even when the dems control the house and senate there is not the will for anything really restrictive.
> 
> I mean Patrick Lehey is pretty liberal but he's pro gun.
> 
> We were doing pretty well up till Newtown. Something about shooting little kids execution style with an assault weapon really grabs the public.
> 
> But now the spotlight is on. Do we want to be all about walking around with military looking guns and speculating about SHTF and what round has the best stopping power?? Or do we want to be about hunting and shooting tin cans with your kids and HS and college shooting teams and stuff like that??
> 
> I'm saying we can enjoy our hobby without presenting a target to the media and anti gunners and there are some things we can do to prevent crazy people from getting guns and shooting up the place.


I shoot tin cans with my black rifles/pistols, I own many (17 or so) of them. Doesn't make me a criminal. My son owns his own AR15, I too have 2 of them.


----------



## deaconjim

whistler said:


> I am proposing that we need to do a better job keeping guns out of the hands of people who are going to use them to harm others. Nothing more and nothing less. There is a pretty long history of regulating the exercise of one's individual rights so as not to unduly impinge upon the rights (or safety) of others. The obvious example is shouting 'fire' in a crowded public space. A not so clear, but perhaps more apt, example is inciting violence in others. You have the 1st amendment protection of freedom of speech but there are recognized (by the greater society and by legal precedent) limits to that speech.
> 
> I don't advocate repealing or ignoring the 2nd amendment. I advocate using our brains to develop a solution that is palatable to non-gun owners. All it takes is a Constitutional Amendment to invalidate the 2nd amendment. IF enough people (and I think we are still a long, long way from reaching that number) in this country feel that the 2nd Amendment needs to go away, it will. We talk often about a slippery slope to confiscation, the long view real problem in my opinion is the slippery slope to a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the 2nd amendment.
> 
> As we've seen, nothing gets the anti's fired up like a school shooting. When guns and gun violence aren't in the headlines we can keep them at bay. When they are in the headline, and you can guarantee that every time a school gets shot up that will make the headlines, we will lose ground. I even believe that when school security systems stop shooters it will make the headlines, as it rightly should. Maybe the new 'assualt weapon' ban won't pass this time or even the next two times. But if this keeps happening, it will.
> 
> We, as gun owners, need to own the solution to the problem. We might win the battle of 'no new changes' now but we will lose the war of 'no more guns'.


First of all, it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, unless of course the theater is on fire. It is also illegal to shoot someone with your gun, unless of course that shooting is justified. The "yelling fire in a theater" argument is kinda pointless in this discussion, wouldn't you agree?

You are correct in stating that a constitutional amendment can repeal the 2nd Amendment, but doing so does not take away my right to keep and bear arms. Our rights were not granted to us by the government via the Constitution, they already existed because we are humans, and the government was created for the purpose of protecting our freedom to exercise those rights. 

We gun owners have offered a number of very good ideas for making things safer, but those who want to take away our guns are interested in control rather than safety. This issue is simply a political tool, and frankly I don't see any indication that logical thought processes are of interest to them because our solutions for gun violence won't provide them the control they seek.


----------



## whistler

farmrbrown said:


> I won't try to change your mind, the media is putting many that have the same views all over the airways right now, complete with the emotional tug of grieving parents.
> We do sympathize with their terrible losses, but this isn't being looked at logically, just emotionally.
> There is logically one reason and only one for this "comprehensive"
> background check.
> Just one.
> The database will have legal gun owners who have purchased a gun.
> No criminals will be on it, no mentally ill, just legal gun owners in national database.


And therefore anyone *not*on this list in possession of a firearm is breaking the law and should be subject to immediate arrest. You have unwittingly just made the best argument possible for creating a national database of gun owners. 


> Many of us were taught from our childhood to NEVER let this happen. The only logical, next step, is confiscation, by force if necessary.
> Secondly, if your overwhelming fear for your children would tempt you to let this happen, I offer you the only logical alternative to allay that fear.
> Lock your child up in solitary confinement.
> They will be protected at all times, and that will assure their complete safety.
> Nothing short of that will give y'all the 100% safety guarantee that you desire.


I think perhaps you misinterpreted what I wrote. I never advocated for a 100% safety guarantee for my children - you very firmly put those words into my mouth. I advocate for reasonably reducing the risks of all types of harm to all people.


----------



## wannabechef

deaconjim said:


> First of all, it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, unless of course the theater is on fire. It is also illegal to shoot someone with your gun, unless of course that shooting is justified. The "yelling fire in a theater" argument is kinda pointless in this discussion, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> You are correct in stating that a constitutional amendment can repeal the 2nd Amendment, but doing so does not take away my right to keep and bear arms. Our rights were not granted to us by the government via the Constitution, they already existed because we are humans, and the government was created for the purpose of protecting our freedom to exercise those rights.
> 
> We gun owners have offered a number of very good ideas for making things safer, but those who want to take away our guns are interested in control rather than safety. This issue is simply a political tool, and frankly I don't see any indication that logical thought processes are of interest to them because our solutions for gun violence won't provide them the control they seek.


Great post Jim..


----------



## whistler

deaconjim said:


> First of all, it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, unless of course the theater is on fire. It is also illegal to shoot someone with your gun, unless of course that shooting is justified. The "yelling fire in a theater" argument is kinda pointless in this discussion, wouldn't you agree?


Yes, which is why I brought up the second example.



> We gun owners have offered a number of very good ideas for making things safer, but those who want to take away our guns are interested in control rather than safety.


I believe this is true. However, I don't think as gun owners we have offered enough ideas that are realistic or that appeal to the general non-firearm owning public. Note I am not talking about politicians here.


----------



## deaconjim

whistler said:


> Yes, which is why I brought up the second example.


And your second example is flawed in just the same way as was the first. We are already required by law to exercise our rights in a manner consistent with public safety and respecting the rights of others. My ownership of guns of any kind do not endager public safety, nor does it infringe upon the rights of anyone else. If however, I choose to use one or more of those guns in such a way that the public is endagered, or if I use a gun in such a way that it violates the rights of others without just cause, then I am in violation of existing laws. It is the use of the guns that crosses the line, not the ownership.



whistler said:


> I believe this is true. However, I don't think as gun owners we have offered enough ideas that are realistic or that appeal to the general non-firearm owning public. Note I am not talking about politicians here.


One solution or a thousand, if those who make the laws aren't going to pay attention, what difference does it make? I haven't seen anything that makes me believe a majority of Americans believe more gun laws are needed.


----------



## farmrbrown

whistler said:


> And therefore anyone *not*on this list in possession of a firearm is breaking the law and should be subject to immediate arrest. You have unwittingly just made the best argument possible for creating a national database of gun owners.


???
If you have a firearm illegally, they *ALREADY* have the right and means to arrest you.
Are you saying they'll take the list of legal gun owners, and if you AREN'T on it, search you for firearms? 
That's the only way I could have unwittingly made your argument........assuming the 4th and 5th amendments were abolished.



whistler said:


> I think perhaps you misinterpreted what I wrote. I never advocated for a 100% safety guarantee for my children - you very firmly put those words into my mouth. I advocate for reasonably reducing the risks of all types of harm to all people.


OK. 
Then if you get the laws you want and find out it didn't reduce the risk level, like most of us already know it won't, then what?
Can we have our guns back?



ETA.
BTW, for the rest of you, I DO realize that's NOT the way it'll work.
Whoops, we made a mistake, here's your gun back, my bad, lol.


----------



## whistler

deaconjim said:


> And your second example is flawed in just the same way as was the first. We are already required by law to exercise our rights in a manner consistent with public safety and respecting the rights of others. My ownership of guns of any kind do not endager public safety, nor does it infringe upon the rights of anyone else.


When aggregated across all legal firearm owners, this premise is demonstrably false. Legal individual firearm ownership does increase the risk of violence. In fact, we've already ascertained that in this discussion. Loughner and Homes both legally possessed their guns and look how that turned out.

A key point is that we can never reduce the risk of violence from legally owned firearms to zero. However, it is clear that the risk, however small, that comes from having private firearm ownership is becoming less and less tolerable to the general populace. I believe it is in our best interest to find ways to continually decrease that risk.


----------



## deaconjim

whistler said:


> When aggregated across all legal firearm owners, this premise is demonstrably false. Legal individual firearm ownership does increase the risk of violence. In fact, we've already ascertained that in this discussion. Loughner and Homes both legally possessed their guns and look how that turned out.
> 
> A key point is that we can never reduce the risk of violence from legally owned firearms to zero. However, it is clear that the risk, however small, that comes from having private firearm ownership is becoming less and less tolerable to the general populace. I believe it is in our best interest to find ways to continually decrease that risk.


It was not the legal ownership of those firearms that caused the problem, it was the illegal use of them. I have quite a few guns, and they have yet to incite violence. In fact, the opposite is true because on more than one occasion I used my guns to prevent violence. 

I would also disagree with your assertion that it is clear that the general populace is in any way less tolerable of gun ownership. Take a trip by your local gun shop and the empty shelves will offer evidence that Americans are still quite happy with private ownership of guns. It is a vocal minority that seeks to limit our gun rights, and I have no intention of giving into their demands.


----------



## wannabechef

whistler said:


> When aggregated across all legal firearm owners, this premise is demonstrably false. Legal individual firearm ownership does increase the risk of violence. In fact, we've already ascertained that in this discussion. Loughner and Homes both legally possessed their guns and look how that turned out.
> 
> A key point is that we can never reduce the risk of violence from legally owned firearms to zero. However, it is clear that the risk, however small, that comes from having private firearm ownership is becoming less and less tolerable to the general populace. I believe it is in our best interest to find ways to continually decrease that risk.


So tell us which laws would have prevented Holmes and Loughner from shooting many people...

Can't wait for your answer...."tapping feet"


----------



## whistler

farmrbrown said:


> ???
> If you have a firearm illegally, they *ALREADY* have the right and means to arrest you.
> Are you saying they'll take the list of legal gun owners, and if you AREN'T on it, search you for firearms?
> That's the only way I could have unwittingly made your argument........assuming the 4th and 5th amendments were abolished.


With current law how could the police know whether everyone in possession of a firearm was a legal owner? They can't know in every situation; however, with registration this is much easier. 


Please note, I do not advocate gun registration in any way, shape or form. I am speaking in purely hypothetical terms. 




> Then if you get the laws you want and find out it didn't reduce the risk level, like most of us already know it won't, then what?
> Can we have our guns back?


I don't advocate taking guns away from anyone except those who are deemed incompetent to own them. I feel pretty confident that taking guns away from violent and/or certain types of mentally ill people will certainly reduce the risk of violence.


----------



## wannabechef

wannabechef said:


> So tell us which laws would have prevented Holmes and Loughner from shooting many people...
> 
> Can't wait for your answer...."tapping feet"


Waiting....


----------



## farmrbrown

whistler said:


> When aggregated across all legal firearm owners, this premise is demonstrably false. Legal individual firearm ownership does increase the risk of violence. In fact, we've already ascertained that in this discussion. Loughner and Homes both legally possessed their guns and look how that turned out.
> 
> A key point is that we can never reduce the risk of violence from legally owned firearms to zero. However, it is clear that the risk, however small, that comes from having private firearm ownership is becoming less and less tolerable to the general populace. I believe it is in our best interest to find ways to continually decrease that risk.



Wow.
I guess that First Amendment thing must REALLY upset you.
Wanna talk about precursor to violence, a smart aleck mouth does it every time........
lol


----------



## whistler

wannabechef said:


> So tell us which laws would have prevented Holmes and Loughner from shooting many people...
> 
> Can't wait for your answer...."tapping feet"


As I pointed out earlier, you can't ever be sure what could have been done to prevent an event that occurred earlier. 

However, if we look towards the future and identify x number of people who are highly likely to use firearms to harm someone, tie that to a mandatory background check system that denies a legal purchase, a certain number of them will not seek extra-legal means of procuring a firearm. Some of them will still find a firearm, maybe even most of them. But some will not. Perhaps these are the fence sitters who aren't hard core enough to overcome the obstacles. 

The key is that some will not.


----------



## whistler

farmrbrown said:


> Wow.
> I guess that First Amendment thing must REALLY upset you.
> Wanna talk about precursor to violence, a smart aleck mouth does it every time........
> lol


I'm sorry. I don't understand what you are trying to say.


----------



## wannabechef

whistler said:


> As I pointed out earlier, you can't ever be sure what could have been done to prevent an event that occurred earlier.
> 
> However, if we look towards the future and identify x number of people who are highly likely to use firearms to harm someone, tie that to a mandatory background check system that denies a legal purchase, a certain number of them will not seek extra-legal means of procuring a firearm. Some of them will still find a firearm, maybe even most of them. But some will not. Perhaps these are the fence sitters who aren't hard core enough to overcome the obstacles.
> 
> The key is that some will not.


Typical diversion...

Answer this: is it illegal to shoot 22 innocent children? Is there a law already in place making murder illegal?

Was it already illegal to have a firearm within 1000 feet from the school, no less bringing one inside?


----------



## wannabechef

It illegal to steal, but people break into homes and steal guns...how does a background check prevent that? How would a background check have prevented Sandy Hook?


----------



## EvoQ

The last Presidential Election cycle had an awesome 3rd Party Candidate in Gary Johnson the guy I voted for. However; no 3rd party Candidate will ever be successful until the strangle hold that Both current Political parties yield. Both parties have stacked the deck against any 3rd party candidate. To get Federal Matching funds a Candidate must show in the previous election at least a 5 to 25% of the popular vote. Both Romney and Obama spent around a $$ 1 Billion Dollars each. Now tell me How can a 3rd Party Candidate compete with that kind of Campaign spending? No-Way can someone such as Gary Johnson raise that kind of money. Not to mention that Gary Johnson only received around 3% of the Popular Vote this last election so he is Not entitled to 2016 Federal Campaign Funds.

Our Political System is Totally Broken and rigged for the 2 parties. When you have the Fox Guarding the HenHouse; how can we expect anything to change anytime soon ? 

I won't Ramble on too long but what is Needed to bring Control Back to the Citizenry of the USA are these -->

#1 Term Limits across the Board

#2 Referendum - Where-as average people can obtain signatures and can actually bring forth a Law/Bill for a Vote.

#3 Recall - In Essence Firing of a Elected Official. If Joe Smith Public Official promised "A" and did not deliver on "A" then we can fire him thru the Recall Process.

#4 National Sales Tax - Eliminate Federal Income Tax in Favor of a national Sales Tax. If you want to skrimp and save for a few months then you keep your money, if you want to buy allot of Stuff then you pay for Taxes on that stuff. certain things such as Rent, Food, etc. as Exempt from this Tax. The Rate has been discussed to be somewhere near 20% but with other conditions also.

These 4 Above New Situations would help us to bring back Control over our Government that now controls most of our Daily Lives.


----------



## farmrbrown

whistler said:


> With current law how could the police know whether everyone in possession of a firearm was a legal owner? They can't know in every situation; however, with registration this is much easier.
> 
> 
> Please note, I do not advocate gun registration in any way, shape or form. I am speaking in purely hypothetical terms.


It's pretty simple, I'm sure a LEO could answer this or confirm mine.

You're pulled over or stopped on foot or "visited" at home.
"What's this in your shorts? Lemme have that. Put these bracelets on while I run your name."
"Sez here in NCIC, you got a felony back in '99 boy."
Or, "You know you can't have this with that restraining order you got."
I guess this ain't your day, is it?"




whistler said:


> I don't advocate taking guns away from anyone except those who are deemed incompetent to own them. I feel pretty confident that taking guns away from violent and/or certain types of mentally ill people will certainly reduce the risk of violence.


Now, in the case of mental illness, you've got a point, but also a problem.
Are we going to allow everyone's medical records to be public? 
If so, we have to amend the 4th and 5th amendments, because they are your personal records.
There IS an exemption to confidentiality already on the books now, IF that patient is a danger to himself or others. 
So again, there's not too much that can't already be done under the current laws.


----------



## wannabechef

farmrbrown said:


> It's pretty simple, I'm sure a LEO could answer this or confirm mine.
> 
> You're pulled over or stopped on foot or "visited" at home.
> "What's this in your shorts? Lemme have that. Put these bracelets on while I run your name."
> "Sez here in NCIC, you got a felony back in '99 boy."
> Or, "You know you can't have this with that restraining order you got."
> I guess this ain't your day, is it?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, in the case of mental illness, you've got a point, but also a problem.
> Are we going to allow everyone's medical records to be public?
> If so, we have to amend the 4th and 5th amendments, because they are your personal records.
> There IS an exemption to confidentiality already on the books now, IF that patient is a danger to himself or others.
> So again, there's not too much that can't already be done under the current laws.


Farmerbrown answered correctly...to a T.


----------



## farmrbrown

whistler said:


> When aggregated across all legal firearm owners, this premise is demonstrably false. * Legal individual firearm ownership does increase the risk of violence.* In fact, we've already ascertained that in this discussion. Loughner and Homes both legally possessed their guns and look how that turned out.
> 
> A key point is that we can never reduce the risk of violence from legally owned firearms to zero. * However, it is clear that the risk, however small, that comes from having private firearm ownership is becoming less and less tolerable to the general populace. I believe it is in our best interest to find ways to continually decrease that risk*.





farmrbrown said:


> Wow.
> I guess that First Amendment thing must REALLY upset you.
> Wanna talk about precursor to violence, a smart aleck mouth does it every time........
> lol





whistler said:


> I'm sorry. I don't understand what you are trying to say.



I was making the 2nd Amendment analogous to the First.
If you believe that constitutional right should be _further_ infringed in order to reduce the risk of violent behavior, then it makes sense to criminalize any spoken or printed words that _might_ cause someone, somewhere to react violently too.
There's nothing more inciting than a loud drunk, running his mouth, to start a fight. 
Hey! We could outlaw alcohol too, and reduce violence even more!
I betcha a Prohibition amendment would work.........


----------



## whistler

wannabechef said:


> Typical diversion...
> 
> Answer this: is it illegal to shoot 22 innocent children? Is there a law already in place making murder illegal?
> 
> Was it already illegal to have a firearm within 1000 feet from the school, no less bringing one inside?


I'm sure we can all agree that a law saying, 'don't do x' isn't a terribly effective way of preventing x. I also think we can agree that laws making it harder to obtain the tools to do x are going to decrease the frequency of x. Those laws won't completely eliminate x however.


----------



## wannabechef

whistler said:


> I'm sure we can all agree that a law saying, 'don't do x' isn't a terribly effective way of preventing x. I also think we can agree that laws making it harder to obtain the tools to do x are going to decrease the frequency of x. Those laws won't completely eliminate x however.


You miss the point...right over your head...

Do you have any idea the amount of illegal guns on the street right now? Do you know that most guns used in crimes are illegal? Do you also know that if someone wants a gun they can buy one without a background check from another person who breaks laws? Do you know that this is illegal and it's obvious the law is not working, yet a criminal is selling the illegal gun? Why don't we stop the criminal from selling illegal guns?

Background checks work great...for law abiding person that buys at a gun store, but that's not where criminals shop. If they did the current laws would prevent them from purchasing.

Is this really that hard to comprehend? It's simple really, not calling you dumb, but I'm far from a genius and I understand it.


----------



## wannabechef

farmrbrown said:


> I was making the 2nd Amendment analogous to the First.
> If you believe that constitutional right should be _further_ infringed in order to reduce the risk of violent behavior, then it makes sense to criminalize any spoken or printed words that _might_ cause someone, somewhere to react violently too.
> There's nothing more inciting than a loud drunk, running his mouth, to start a fight.
> Hey! We could outlaw alcohol too, and reduce violence even more!
> I betcha a Prohibition amendment would work.........


You are onto something there farmerbrown! Prohibition worked great...it greatly reduced crime, much like the war on drugs! 

So if whistler wants background checks on everyone, I suggest background checks on anyone who writes a blog, email, news story, magazine article or any other story/article viewed by anyone other than themselves. While we are at it, lets limit and tax the Internet...many hate groups use it for plotting crimes. We can require a background check on anyone who want to sign up for Internet access. We have got to keep the Internet out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. 

Take it a step further and require GPS on all cars am cameras inside people's homes to track any and all movement.


----------



## whistler

farmrbrown said:


> I was making the 2nd Amendment analogous to the First.
> If you believe that constitutional right should be _further_ infringed in order to reduce the risk of violent behavior, then it makes sense to criminalize any spoken or printed words that _might_ cause someone, somewhere to react violently too.
> There's nothing more inciting than a loud drunk, running his mouth, to start a fight.
> Hey! We could outlaw alcohol too, and reduce violence even more!
> I betcha a Prohibition amendment would work.........


I see.

The point I am getting at is there is a long standing legal precedent that individual rights can be subjected to reasonable restriction in order to reasonably attempt to secure the rights of others. The million dollar question is, "what is reasonable".

Of course there is no single, right answer as laws are basically opinions about what ought to happen. The situation about disseminating inflammatory speech is far from settled as to what constitutes 'crossing the line '. Moreover, all prior evaluations are subject to review as new technologies come to the fore. There are many unanswered questions about freedom of speech and the Internet for example.

Bringing it back to guns, anti's often say the Founders used muskets and so should we. This idea is absurd but rooted in the concept that reasonable restrictions on individual rights must evolve according to changes in technology, social norms, and such. Note, the individual right doesn't change or disappear but rather how people are allowed to express that right must take context into consideration.


----------



## wannabechef

whistler said:


> I'm sure we can all agree that a law saying, 'don't do x' isn't a terribly effective way of preventing x. I also think we can agree that laws making it harder to obtain the tools to do x are going to decrease the frequency of x. Those laws won't completely eliminate x however.


And no, we don't agree...sorry dude.


----------



## wannabechef

Who gives the government power whistler? 

We do. 



Why should the very people who elected the officials be stripped of rights? A background check for a firearm purchase is a "guilty until proven innocent" thing, even suspected criminals are innocent until proven guilty.

That's why I have a problem with it, criminals do not follow the law, but I have to abide by laws that only affect a law abiding person to prevent me from becoming a criminal.

Where in the constitution does it say I have to have a background check to own a firearm...it doesn't.


----------



## whistler

wannabechef said:


> You miss the point...right over your head...
> 
> Do you have any idea the amount of illegal guns on the street right now? Do you know that most guns used in crimes are illegal? Do you also know that if someone wants a gun they can buy one without a background check from another person who breaks laws? Do you know that this is illegal and it's obvious the law is not working, yet a criminal is selling the illegal gun? Why don't we stop the criminal from selling illegal guns?
> 
> Background checks work great...for law abiding person that buys at a gun store, but that's not where criminals shop. If they did the current laws would prevent them from purchasing.
> 
> Is this really that hard to comprehend? It's simple really, not calling you dumb, but I'm far from a genius and I understand it.


Believe it or not, I understand what you are saying. 

Let me ask you a few questions. Do feel that anyone, and I mean anyone, should be able to walk into Cabelas plunk down $500 in cash and walk away with a 9mm pistol? Convicted felon? Convicted rapist?


----------



## whistler

wannabechef said:


> And no, we don't agree...sorry dude.


Really? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not their own facts. Facts are against you on this one. If laws make it harder to do something the frequency of that will decrease. 

Case in point. It was made illegal to cause phosphorous to enter a waterway in Minnesota. This law didn't significantly decrease the phosphorous entering waterways until it became against the law to fertilizer containing phosphorous in the metropolitan area. Since then the amount of phosphorous entering waterways has fallen considerably. 

It been functionally impossible to legally buy a fully automatic firearm for a long time. I think it would be cool to own but the hurdles to doing so are too great..


----------



## wannabechef

whistler said:


> Believe it or not, I understand what you are saying.
> 
> Let me ask you a few questions. Do feel that anyone, and I mean anyone, should be able to walk into Cabelas plunk down $500 in cash and walk away with a 9mm pistol? Convicted felon? Convicted rapist?


Felons are prevented from owning firearms already. The checks are already in place to prevent it, it was also against the law 200 years ago when the constitution was written.

Sadly nothing prevents a felon from acquiring a firearm now...nothing, not a single law, and no proposed law will either. Just because he is denied a gun purchase at cabelas doesn't mean he's gonna say "well, looks like I won't be shooting 20 people today, guess I'll just go home and watch TV". 

Trust me, if I wanted to kill 20 people I could do it right now without a gun in my house or a gun store. I could obtain an illegal firearm (probably cheaper than going to a gun store too) and go to a mall and kill as many people as my heart desired. The only thing stopping me is it's morally wrong. Not a single law prevents me.


----------



## whistler

wannabechef said:


> Who gives the government power whistler?
> 
> We do.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the very people who elected the officials be stripped of rights? A background check for a firearm purchase is a "guilty until proven innocent" thing, even suspected criminals are innocent until proven guilty.


As you said above, the people give the government the power. And if they choose to use the power to determine what constitutes a reasonable restriction on those rights that is the prerogative of the people.


----------



## whistler

wannabechef said:


> Felons are prevented from owning firearms already. The checks are already in place to prevent it, it was also against the law 200 years ago when the constitution was written.
> 
> Sadly nothing prevents a felon from acquiring a firearm now...nothing, not a single law, and no proposed law will either.


That is your opinion In the strictest sense of logic you cannot make that claim as the future is unknowable. I believe there are things that can be done to make it harder for unsuitable people to get guns. Again, this is my opinion though. 

Logical application of well established principles of human behavior are on my side though.


----------



## whistler

wannabechef said:


> .


Nice chatting with you. I've got to get back to work.


----------



## wannabechef

whistler said:


> As you said above, the people give the government the power. And if they choose to use the power to determine what constitutes a reasonable restriction on those rights that is the prerogative of the people.


We do not give them power to remove rights or restrict them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> However, if we *look towards the future* and identify x number of people who are highly likely to use firearms to harm someone


So all we need is a Crystal Ball?
No, thanks


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Legal individual firearm ownership does increase the risk of violence.



So have you turned *YOURS* over to the authorites*?*
You sound dangerous *to me*


----------



## wannabechef

Bearfootfarm said:


> So all we need is a Crystal Ball?
> No, thanks


Meanwhile millions of law abiding gun owners are on a list.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

whistler said:


> I don't advocate taking guns away from anyone except those who are deemed incompetent to own them. I feel pretty confident that taking guns away from violent and/or certain types of mentally ill people will certainly reduce the risk of violence.


so treat them , monitor them and keep an eye on them , put them in the nics system , offer free voluntary nics checks by both parties calling in together , or only sell your guns to persons with a CCL or CCP. 

you will get much greater compliance in this way , than by forcing anything , registration and very precise tracking of small items that can easily be carried in a bag , coat , pocket , 
the government can't even track people that need to eat ,breath and work, that they know were they come from 

if people can live their lives in plain sight , yet be illegal , what makes you think that tracking more intimate objects than the population of the country , and that have an almost indefinite shelf life would happen.

what will it do create a massive department of more government , to further drain resources from the law abiding , Canada gave up on it's gun long gun registry 2 years ago , after spending 20+ years and billions and billions of dollars trying to track a 1/100 of the guns with 1/10 of the population to find no noticeable benefit in crime rates .


the point is if you just ignore the mental condition , and try and keep them from owning just guns , it will just be something else , a knife , a car , poison


----------



## Shrek

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> I will bite , what solution or legislation do you propose that had it been in place Dec 1, 2012 would have prevented sandy hook.
> 
> Maybe you have one but the solutions being proposed are tired old rhetoric that will not stop what happened , and have little to do with stopping it , just a move to not let a tragedy go to political waste , to make unknowing people feel better about "something having been done " when nothing is actually been done to address the issue only to put a fresh coat of paint on the eyesore.
> 
> so lets say you have a 1 in 300 million occurrence triennially of a bad person who has had months of planning and prep to hit a very soft target and do maximum damage in 5 minutes then off him/her self
> 
> how do you plan to stop that, when a person is willing to kill to become armed


Teachers, janitors and secretaries urban combat scenario trained CCW outfitted could have stopped the "26 killed massacre" and instead maybe only two or three people at most would have died and one of them would have been the nut job attacker. 

Of course the defensive response point man would probably been killed but that is generally an understood detail of trained combat shooters.


----------



## deaconjim

whistler said:


> I'm sure we can all agree that a law saying, 'don't do x' isn't a terribly effective way of preventing x. *I also think we can agree that laws making it harder to obtain the tools to do x are going to decrease the frequency of x.* Those laws won't completely eliminate x however.


No, we can't all agree on this. I also fail to see how you would do that without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

If the idea that requiring everyone who could even touch a gun to have been back ground checked worked , Illinoise would be a safe place , they can't buy legally from out of state from a non dealer were they need a FOID card , and they can't buy in state without a FOID card , but yet Chicago leads the nation in gun violence.

Massachusetts would also be covered you need a gun license , and they take a long time and checks to get.

it is counter productive , it wastes money , doesn't work , and endangers people waiting a months to a year or more to get a gun license in some cases.

we see it over and over , more good people carrying decreases crime , it makes criminals feel unsafe , restrictions to carry only enable criminals , mostly mentally because they are secure in the belief they can get away without getting shot by john or jane citizen .


----------



## littlejoe

whistler said:


> With current law how could the police know whether everyone in possession of a firearm was a legal owner? They can't know in every situation; however, with registration this is much easier.
> 
> 
> Please note, I do not advocate gun registration in any way, shape or form. I am speaking in purely hypothetical terms.
> 
> 
> I don't advocate taking guns away from anyone except those who are deemed incompetent to own them. I feel pretty confident that taking guns away from violent and/or certain types of mentally ill people will certainly reduce the risk of violence.


Just how do you expect registration to keep anything away from those with criminal intent? Do you not understand that they already have INTENTION to commit a crime, which is already illegal? Is registration going to stop a crime from happening? WOW! I wished it were that simple!

How will you keep a firearm away from someone with intent? Or a blade, or flammables/explosives, or anything else? Do you really believe you can legislate morality? Do you really believe you can deter criminals by making it more illegal?

These people comitting these crimes should have been identified long before, and locked away. Hollow attempts at laws trying to make things harder for those with intent only give them more determination to succeed, as well as giving them more opportunities.

Me...I intend on being responsible and preparing myself. Our nations founding fathers and my own biblical beliefs have given me a great foundation to follow. If you don't like "biblical" you can insert moral.

These new legislative challenges we face are about controlling the populace. One step at a time! Will you keep giving your 2nd up to the point, all you are allowed is a musket? Will that make you feel safer? Will it keep a criminal from being superior in firepower or numbers? OR...do you actually believe it will simply stop him???


----------



## littlejoe

whistler said:


> That is your opinion In the strictest sense of logic you cannot make that claim as the future is unknowable. I believe there are things that can be done to make it harder for unsuitable people to get guns. Again, this is my opinion though.
> 
> Logical application of well established principles of human behavior are on my side though.


I don't understand what kind of logic you are using? OK... was that reverse logic? Meaning like...anti-logic?

Do you understand history?


----------

