Hb 4774 mi


PDA






shootingthebreeze
May 13, 2014, 12:29 PM
Tomorrow, there will be a rally by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America at the Capitol, Lansing MI relating to HB 4774.

As a gun owner (and CPL holder) I am also a supporter of gun sense in America. Just yesterday, a man killed an employee at the Rite Aid in Frandor, Lansing and shortly afterwards shot and killed another person in East Lansing.

If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment. No one here wants that including me.

Several things are a concern, one in particular. As a CPL holder there are rules as to prohibited areas such as schools, places of worship. Some here in Michigan have gone around the rules and just open carry. HB 4774 addresses that, which would prohibit open carry in such places. Myself, I feel that open carry anywhere is not necessary in 2014-where is the OK Corral? I have seen more open carry in the Lansing area and I cannot see its justification.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hb 4774 mi" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Midwest
May 13, 2014, 12:55 PM
If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment. No one here wants that including me.

Myself, I feel that open carry anywhere is not necessary in 2014-where is the OK Corral? I have seen more open carry in the Lansing area and I cannot see its justification.
Sorry I disagree. I hope the legislation gets tossed out, registration of all firearms needs to be resoundingly defeated. Firearm registration is what Australia and the UK did to it's citizens. Later on Australia confiscated those registered firearms from law abiding citizens who committed no crime.

'Moms' is a front organization fronted with Bloomberg's money, whose main goal is to disarm gun owners in this country. You did know that, didn't you?

Why do you call yourself a gun owner and support organizations hell bent on taking your rights away? Unless of course you are not a gun owner, just posing as one.........
.

dab102999
May 13, 2014, 01:11 PM
Myself, I feel that open carry anywhere is not necessary in 2014-where is the OK Corral? I have seen more open carry in the Lansing area and I cannot see its justification.

The justification is the disconect of training and schooling on guns. They have spent many decades takeing guns out of every day life and replaced it with the thought that either cops or criminals carry guns. Open carry has been in our (Michigans) constitution since the late 1880's so today it is just as important as it has been for the last 130+ years.

As far as expanding restrictions I believe the only expansion should be the expansion to constitutional carry. I will reserve any other comment at this point until full discloser of this story for I believe that this is not the first time a crime had been comittied by this person so there for any more laws would do nothing for the laws we have did not and will not stop what happened.

dab102999
May 13, 2014, 01:13 PM
Also if I am not mistaken at the time frame of the O.K. corral it was illegal to carry in the streets of Tombstone also.

smalls
May 13, 2014, 01:46 PM
If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment. No one here wants that including me.

You can't seriously believe all of this...

shootingthebreeze
May 13, 2014, 02:35 PM
Owner of a Rossi .38/.357 revolver 2.5 inch barrel, rubber grips; Springfield Champion 1911 style .45 (my favorite); Kahr .45; Kahr .380; Remington 12 gauge police shotgun. Yes I'm a gun owner and expend over 300 rounds a month at Rose Lake Range Spring Summer and Fall.

Many gun owners I know support Moms. I don't agree with everything they say nor do I agree with Bloomberg's extreme views. There must, however, be a beginning of a dialogue relating to gun registration and sealing exiting loopholes which exist.

shootingthebreeze
May 13, 2014, 02:45 PM
Extreme stands such as the NRA which will not bend an inch relating to common sense gun legislation could eventually cause a radical move by a US President who could enact an executive order which could severely curtail the Second Amendment. Compromise, bending, and making gun ownership safer in the US would avoid a radical approach by the US gov.
If the US acts radically there is nothing you or I can do - the US Gov. has more weapons, automatic weapons, artillery, tanks, and a standing Army against which NO ONE here can fight no matter how many firearms and stocked ammo you have.
We need to be opened minded, flexible and open to change.

Midwest
May 13, 2014, 02:53 PM
Owner of a Rossi .38/.357 revolver 2.5 inch barrel, rubber grips; Springfield Champion 1911 style .45 (my favorite); Kahr .45; Kahr .380; Remington 12 gauge police shotgun. Yes I'm a gun owner and expend over 300 rounds a month at Rose Lake Range Spring Summer and Fall.

Many gun owners I know support Moms. I don't agree with everything they say nor do I agree with Bloomberg's extreme views. There must, however, be a beginning of a dialogue relating to gun registration and sealing exiting loopholes which exist.
The dialog for gun registration is simple. And that is not only should HB 4774 fail, but Michigan should also scrap it's handgun registration. As far as sealing "loopholes", are we talking "Universal Background Checks" (UBC) ?

The same UBC that cost the offices of two politicians in Colorado. The same UBC which kept an honest citizen from getting her firearm back from the police? The same UBC that will lead to firearm registration and later confiscation?

If you want dialog, you might want to ask the chapter leader of that 'Mom's' group about who funds the group. How much funding was made for this particular event. How much do the buses cost to bring in the group.

Further dialog could include: What the purpose is of their organization really is. What other states has that chapter visited. What is their next agenda after this bill fails to pass.

To sum things up. Here you have a group who is funded by a New Yorker and someone who is not even a citizen of the state of Michigan. And trying to influence policy on that state. And...you see nothing wrong with that?

Interesting how you list your firearms and none of them include a AR-15 or an AK-47. Now you wouldn't be supporting restricting or having any of those rifles banned now...would you?
.

shootingthebreeze
May 13, 2014, 03:10 PM
If I wanted a rifle I would get a Weatherby 300 magnum with an excellent scope. I did see one when I was in Kentucky. AR 15 or AKs - I'm not attracted to them.
There are a few other high quality rifles I saw there as well. I used to have a .270 in Germany and it was an excellent hunting rifle caliber.

vamo
May 13, 2014, 08:10 PM
So what do you think would happen is universal registration/background checks were passed tomorrow? Do you honestly believe the aforementioned groups would just declare mission accomplished and go home? The thing is they're going for the low hanging fruit because its possible, not because they believe we just need a "little more" gun control.

Their strategy is death by 1000 cuts. The best way to prevent the 2a from dying by 1000 cuts is to fight everything. I honestly fail to see the logic in your belief that supporting "common sense" restrictions now will result in a better future for U.S. gun ownership.

And in regards to the ak47 clones and ar-15s its fine that you don't own them as a matter of your own personal preference, just hope you're fine with the rest of us owning them as a matter of our own personal preference.

Midwest
May 13, 2014, 08:46 PM
If I wanted a rifle I would get a Weatherby 300 magnum with an excellent scope. I did see one when I was in Kentucky. AR 15 or AKs - I'm not attracted to them.
There are a few other high quality rifles I saw there as well. I used to have a .270 in Germany and it was an excellent hunting rifle caliber.
I don't own either rifles myself, I would like to someday. But I do have an SKS with a standard capacity 30 round magazine. Speaking of rifles but more specific about hunting.

I would like to clarify and mention that there is a lot of misinformation going around about the Second Amendment intent really is. It has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting.

It was considered by the framers to be an additional safeguard against an overly powerful central government. The right to bear arms preserves the natural right to defend against the loss of life, limb, or liberty caused by the criminal acts of others.

There are some who are trying to erode that right on a daily basis. Like in the case of Mr Bloomberg who uses his personal funds to promote his extremist anti-gun beliefs by financially supporting anti-gun groups like Moms.

Moms is really a front for Bloomberg's anti-gun agenda, and every gun owner who values their Second Amendment rights needs to stand up for those rights and oppose anti-gun groups like Moms and others.

And it should make every gun owner in Michigan pissed off that an outsider like Mr. Bloomberg (who doesn't even live in Michigan) is trying to dictate the passage of laws and policy through his funding of anti-gun groups like Moms.
.

Pistola
May 13, 2014, 09:12 PM
Strongly disagree with OP

greenmtnguy
May 13, 2014, 09:13 PM
Mom's may as well be called "Bloomberg's Trojan Horse", as that is what they all hope it would be. Oh, this and this and this are just small COMPROMISES for you, doesn't that make sense? Well, in my understanding of COMPROMISE, is that BOTH sides have to give up something, and I don't see any of Bloomberg's phony groups giving up on anything, simply trying to change tactics or attack from a different flank when thwarted on one front..

USAF_Vet
May 14, 2014, 01:53 AM
Cannot disagree with the OP strongly enough. Common sense gun laws? Where have they gotten us so far? So pass a few more, disarm the law abiding even further. Create more gun free zones which we know criminals love. These laws, registration, background checks, no open carry, more PFZs... what effect will they have on the criminals who ignore them now? Will they do as history has proven and continue to ignore them, or will they have the Feinstein epiphany (no one here is armed, I'll just go ahead and turn myself in. Its human nature)? I'm side with history on this, and encourage more open carry in public.

Its like beating a dead horse, with these anti gun folks. And yes, I consider the OP anti gun, or perhaps extremely misguided and painfully unaware of the facts behind his rhetoric.

I have nothing else to contribute that would be considered High Road, here.
:vomit:

USAF_Vet
May 14, 2014, 02:19 AM
I retract my last statement, because I actually do have more to say.

"As a gun owner (and CPL holder) I am also a supporter of gun sense in America. Just yesterday, a man killed an employee at the Rite Aid in Frandor, Lansing and shortly afterwards shot and killed another person in East Lansing."

That Rite Aid, as most drug stores, are policy driven gun free zones. Just like the Walgreen pharmacy in Benton Harbor, only in that instance, the employee ignored the stupid policy that would have gotten him shot. My life is worth more than my job, but apparently not to Rite Aid. Bad policy that forcefully disarms people gets folks killed.

"If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. "

No, it won't. The strict gun laws ARE the danger to the second amendment

"Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment. No one here wants that including me."

No, it won't. The only thing that will weaken the second amendment are the people who actively campaign against it, those who support them, and those who do nothing to stand in their way. The second amendment needs active efforts to infringe upon it. People like you.

"Several things are a concern, one in particular. As a CPL holder there are rules as to prohibited areas such as schools, places of worship. Some here in Michigan have gone around the rules and just open carry."

Its not going around the rule. Its abiding by the law, as it is written.


"HB 4774 addresses that, which would prohibit open carry in such places. Myself, I feel that open carry anywhere is not necessary in 2014-where is the OK Corral?"

Because open carry by licensed CPL holders in these areas has become such a problem. Can't go a day without reading about some event where a law abiding citizen.... oh wait. Never mind. The licensed to carry, law abiding citizens are not, have not been, and are unlikely to ever be the problem as it relates to violent crime.
You see no place for open carry? There is an entire state outside East Lansing, most of it rural farmland. My neighbors don't bat an eye when they see me out in my yard with a shotgun slung over my shoulder. No one bats an eye out on the trail when I was hunting morels and had a pistol OCd on my hip, and none of the patrons of the restaurant I took my family to afterwards made a big deal about my clearly displayed pistol. Law abiding citizens still are not the problem. Pistol hunting is perfectly legal, and its a bit awkward, difficult and stupid to conceal an 8" .44 mag just because OC has a blanket prohibition. The deer will appreciate it.

"I have seen more open carry in the Lansing area and I cannot see its justification."

You are entitled to your opinion, just don't be surprised when people disagree. Unlicensed open carry is legal. I know personally the effect it has on folks. Most other law abiding citizens have no issues with it. Criminals don't particularly like it, though.
Here is some justification for you. Self defense. As a CPL holder, you are aware of the expense of obtaining the license. $105 for the permit, roughly $100 for the training, not to mention possible time taken off work to complete it. For many, its expensive enough to afford the gun and a box of ammo. An extra $200+ sitting around would be great, but its a hard justification to many people struggling just to get by. So while not ideal, an open carried Hi Point may be all some people can afford to defend themselves. Self defense isn't just for the affluent who can afford it. I was poor, broke and open carrying a Hi Point at a time in my life where I could not afford better. And with death threats made against me and my family, it was better than nothing.

I have yet to see any positive effects from any of the previously passed common sense gun laws, and I have sincere doubts that I'll see any positive effects if this garbage legislation passes. The fact that Moms Demand Action supports it is reason enough to do the opposite.

kwguy
May 14, 2014, 04:54 AM
So now we have another little catchy anti-2a phrase: gun sense.

Please stop. It's just Bloomberg trying to push his agenda.

Midwest
May 14, 2014, 08:10 AM
As a gun owner (and CPL holder) I am also a supporter of gun sense in America.

Are you aware that Mr. Bloomberg is against YOU carrying.

"http://www.wnd.com/2004/02/23223/

..... Bloomberg continued: “I am against people carrying guns. ".........

So tell us why are you supporting a group which is funded by a person who is against YOU carrying a gun?

.

BryanDavis
May 14, 2014, 04:35 PM
Shootingthebreeze, are you aware that once Moms Demand Action is done going after other people's guns they are eventually going to come for your guns and your CPL right?

cambeul41
May 14, 2014, 06:21 PM
I know that sarcasm often fails on the net, but since you have been warned, let me give it a shot:

Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment. No one here wants that including me.

Exactly correct! So why are you doing it?

Bartholomew Roberts
May 14, 2014, 06:29 PM
Shootingbreeze, are you aware that Tom Ridge, former DHS director and Governor, just quit Bloomberg's group because he thought their views were too extreme.

Ridge by the way, recently reaffirmed his support for banning guns and standard magazines - and yet he thinks Bloomberg's agenda is too extreme. Think about that for a second. When you support Moms Demand Action, that is what you are supporting.

The NRA is taking an extreme stand? What part of their policy strikes you as extreme because your characterization of them as opposing all gun control is flat out wrong. The NRA has supported Project Exile. They are the reason we have NICS.

Frankly, I don't think you deserve to own any firearms if you don't support NRA; because without them you wouldn't have that option.

SilverCat
May 14, 2014, 07:10 PM
As I understand it, we are to oppose any and all arms regulation, other than selling to non-citizens or those who commit felonies, of course. (Some felonies are just ridiculous too)

Robert
May 14, 2014, 07:19 PM
What absolute tripe.

hso
May 15, 2014, 05:07 PM
The OP claims a strategy involving surrendering gains to Antis will be effective in "saving" the 2A. They've not explained how the 2A would be threatened since no knowledgeable legal or constitutional expert now sees the 2a as being able to be removed or modified to restrict the individual right interpretation. They've also not presented an argument that the history of progress in advancing RKBA should be considered as stymied. Recent state decisions in NY and CT are expected to be reversed as those n CO will almost certainly be reversed in the next election. They also don't explain the need for change in the face of continuously declining violent crime and homicide rates over the past two decades while sales of the firearms Antis want to restrict or remove from private ownership have grown at the same time AND while more states have made carry legal and based on Shall Issue instead of May Issue during the decline in murder as shown by both the DOJ and CDC. .

Bartholomew Roberts
May 15, 2014, 05:23 PM
Well, the OP also apparently thinks California-style firearms regulation is just fine and dandy (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9474613&postcount=11) and a goal to strive for. So clearly, he isn't looking at the same information we are in making his decision.

USAF_Vet
May 15, 2014, 09:53 PM
Just another who has swallowed the anti rhetoric. OP claims Moms don't want to take away anyone's guns... seriously? They are funded by Bloomberg, who has openly stated his hostility to the 2A, and openly made it known he thinks we should not own guns, let alone carry one, licensed and registered or not. With any organization whoever holds the funds, holds the power. MDA and other anti groups were on the edge of extinction until Sandy Hook, but even that wasn't enough to push through federal level gun laws. CO had two successful recalls and one person resign before a recall due to anti gun legislation. The NY SAFE act was a rushed and jumbled mess that has already been successfully challenged in court. CThas experienced mass noncompliance to registration. I think we've had enough "common sense" gun laws.

pezo
May 15, 2014, 10:05 PM
I've heard nothing of any rally in Lansing either side. No news around here. That mentioned bill seems to have died a long time ago. This topic is fishy. What's interesting is how anti organizations are trying to stir the pot up on these public forums. Gets old. :barf:

pezo
May 15, 2014, 10:27 PM
Wow. Guess there was some rally. Under the radar. There have been huge pro gun rallies in Lansing in the past. Those rallies are still recorded all over the internet. But this little shin dig by bloombergs people went almost unnoticed. Some pro gunners from local groups I guess were heading out there to counter the anti gun propagandist. It's been a "holy grail" of the antis to have members of the shooting community support the second amendment infringements. However, most if not all the members of the shooting community quickly realize if not already known by them that second amendment right infringements do absolutely nothing to save lives, increase crime actually and possibly imprison or cost otherwise law abiding gun owners

Walkalong
May 15, 2014, 10:38 PM
If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment.
Complete nonsense.

Giving in to the antis rhetoric and running scared will endanger the 2nd Amendment.

bikerdoc
May 15, 2014, 11:07 PM
'Shall not be infringed'

barnbwt
May 15, 2014, 11:37 PM
"What's interesting is how anti organizations are trying to stir the pot up on these public forums."
There certainly has been a lot of it in recent days, for whatever reason. Could just be one dissenting voice giving a bit of confidence to other like-minded/unsure members here to speak up (which I'm not against in the least, but will take the time to contradict).

That said...

"Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense"
"As a gun owner (and CPL holder) I am also a supporter of gun sense in America"
"Ignoring gun sense in America will..." (3 in the same post? :scrutiny:)
"There must, however, be a beginning of a dialogue relating to gun registration and sealing exi[s]ting loopholes which exist." (intentional redundancy)
"Extreme stands such as the NRA which will not bend an inch relating to common sense gun legislation could eventually cause a radical move by a US President who could enact an executive order which could severely curtail the Second Amendment. Compromise, bending, and making gun ownership safer in the US would avoid a radical approach by the US gov.
If the US acts radically there is nothing you or I can do - the US Gov. has more weapons, automatic weapons, artillery, tanks, and a standing Army against which NO ONE here can fight no matter how many firearms and stocked ammo you have. We need to be opened minded, flexible and open to change." (radical redundancy)

You know, when a supposed gun-enthusiast's natural vocabulary contains as many well-worn tells/dog-whistles (bolded) and caricatures (italicized) as I've seen here, I'm inclined to wonder... Individuals tend to speak their native tongue; even more so when it comes printed in bullet points. I have no problem with an anti-gun activist posting here to debate, most especially if they actually know something about guns and CCW as you certainly do.

But please do us the courtesy of being honest about your views. No offense, it's just that when 2/3rds of your sentences are a duplicitous "I am a firm believer in [blank], but feel we must [complete opposite]" it's a little obvious. I find it incredibly odd that someone scared into folding for the opposition would also happen to use their language patterns. Incredibly odd.

If you truly are a RKBA proponent (I used to think 9mm's should be banned; we all make mistakes :o) and are actually so worried you think we should cave, I think you should lay off reading their propaganda and try looking outside your particular spot in Lansing. You will find rapid and important progress made in favor of gun rights almost everywhere else in the nation, and a distinct lack of anti-gun sympathy at the national level specifically. Michigan ranks lowest in resident satisfaction; we understand your situation blows. But that does not mean it blow-eth everywhere besides.

"Many gun owners I know support Moms."
So many the meetings are lousy with blaze orange and flannel, right?
"I don't agree with everything they say nor do I agree with Bloomberg's extreme views."
They parrot Bloomberg's extreme views verbatim. They are paid to.
"There must, however, be a beginning of a dialogue relating to gun registration and sealing exiting loopholes which exist."
Not while either we're winning, or ya'll are winning ;). At the moment we're winning, btw. I'll be happy to engage in a dialogue, provided the premise isn't my admitting defeat and allowing yet more infringements. Despite a recent thread closure on the subject due to it being technically beyond the scope of firearms, there was a robust and fascinating debate raging about the pros/cons of relaxing restrictions on machine guns (and RPGs, which is beyond the scope of the forum, but which carry many of the same arguments on both sides as guns in general). The debate was on whether to do so would be wise, not how to do it, as the anti's so doggedly attempt to frame the debates on gun restrictions.

TCB

Art Eatman
May 15, 2014, 11:46 PM
Is it common sense to have laws against carrying a self-defense firearm in certain areas? Such as schools, for instance? How is it common sense to create a very-safe free-fire zone for a murderer?

If one's name is in government records as the owner of firearms, that's little different from the usual view of registration. Historically, without exception, registration has been followed at some point by confiscation. Note that this makes genocide much easier.

And at a time of some of the most egregious corruption and lying by our elected officials that I have seen is my eighty years, I have no faith, no trust in an unending benevolent view by the government of the citizenry. I am unable to keep up with the latest determination as to who is a terrorist.

But I would like for somebody to name for me any gun control law which can be shown to have had a beneficial effect on the rate of criminal misuse of firearms. I've been asking that for over forty years and have never received an answer.

calaverasslim
May 16, 2014, 12:01 AM
Art, you won't either.

Shooting the breeze, you have swallowed the anti rhetoric, hook, line and sinker.

You've played right into their hands

barnbwt
May 16, 2014, 12:15 AM
"But I would like for somebody to name for me any gun control law which can be shown to have had a beneficial effect on the rate of criminal misuse of firearms. I've been asking that for over forty years and have never received an answer."
I wonder what the crime rate for guns in England is. Not the number of shootings/etc. per person --the number of shootings/crimes per gun (based on either registrations roles or an estimate of total number). Something tells me it's higher there, particularly for pistols and the other types they banned the hardest. No, the numbers aren't particularly useful themselves, but I think you could pretty easily show the measures vastly, vastly curtail legal/law abiding behaviors more than illegal ones (though I'll bet both still go down).

"Even if it only gets one illegal gun off the street or saves one life..." :rolleyes:
What if it actually does only get one gun off the street, like, literally?

TCB

Sam1911
May 16, 2014, 10:25 AM
If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment. No one here wants that including me.

Find your courage, man. We're on the cusp of a wave of pro gun motion that's been rolling ever higher and stronger for the last 20 years. This is not the dark days of the '80s and early '90s. Bloomsburg's Moms Without Effect group isn't amounting to even what the all but defunct old HCI "Brady Bunch" was back in the day.
At the most auspicious moment for gun control since the '60s (sandy book) they FAILED. If they couldn't make it happen then, they can't make it happen.

Now is the time to stand stronger than ever, not the time to put our hats in our hands and beg for the chance to crawl to the negotiating table.

Be strong, be of good cheer, and hold the line.

Fred Fuller
May 16, 2014, 10:34 AM
We need to be opened minded, flexible and open to change.

So what IS 'reasonable gun control' in your view (NOT Bloomberg's, or his Astroturf political organizations)?

There are untold laws on the books right now at all levels of government forbidding all manner of criminal activity, including criminal activity involving firearms. It's already illegal to rob someone, armed or empty handed. It's already illegal to assault people, with or without a firearm. It's already illegal to murder people, whether using a firearm or anything else.

Do these laws prevent these criminal acts - and others- from being perpetrated by criminals?

What leads you to believe any further laws - especially laws aimed at already law abiding people for the most part - would have ANY effect on the behavior of CRIMINALS?

I would invite you to go read a blog entry regarding new firearms legislation in Georgia, and the reaction of some government officials to said legislation. Frankly I find about as much logic in your posts on this thread as I do in the reaction of these officials.

See http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/logic-me-not/

BTW, note what this particular blogger does for a living... http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/chiefs-vitae/

hso
May 16, 2014, 11:34 AM
And the failed mythology of "gun control" advocates is based on looking for the least controversial, and least effective, approach to reducing homicides instead of trying to correct the true causes of homicide. The social and economic and cultural basis for violence are difficult problems to address, but they are the ONLY ones that will actually help people drive rates of violence down. The statistics show that firearms like AR15s are used at a lower rate in crime than knives, clubs, hands or feet yet the religion of gun control advocates perpetuates the dogma that a particular firearm with a spicific appearance is somehow imbued with the ability to control the person instead of the individual being in control of their behavior.

waterhouse
May 16, 2014, 12:13 PM
Several things are a concern, one in particular. As a CPL holder there are rules as to prohibited areas such as schools, places of worship. Some here in Michigan have gone around the rules and just open carry. HB 4774 addresses that, which would prohibit open carry in such places. Myself, I feel that open carry anywhere is not necessary in 2014-where is the OK Corral? I have seen more open carry in the Lansing area and I cannot see its justification.

If open carry is legal, how is open carrying going "around the rules?"

Also, it seems that you are saying that the reason people are open carrying is because they law doesn't allow them to conceal carry in certain places. If open carry makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should fight to change the laws which prohibit concealed carry in certain places. Then people wouldn't have to choose an alternate, legal method if they wished to protect themselves and follow all laws.

Spats McGee
May 16, 2014, 01:14 PM
. . . .As a gun owner (and CPL holder) I am also a supporter of gun sense in America. Just yesterday, a man killed an employee at the Rite Aid in Frandor, Lansing and shortly afterwards shot and killed another person in East Lansing.
On the day that you posted the OP, an alleged drunk driver killed two and injured 23 by driving through a crowd (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dead-23-injured-car-plows-crowd-sxsw-texas-article-1.1720095). Drunk driving is already illegal. So is shooting people (as a general proposition).
. . . .If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment. No one here wants that including me.
I disagree. It is the enactment of more gun control that weakens the Second Amendment, not the other way around. I, for one, will not attempt to appease gun control advocates. History shows us that appeasement doesn't work.
. . . .Myself, I feel that open carry anywhere is not necessary in 2014-where is the OK Corral? I have seen more open carry in the Lansing area and I cannot see its justification.
While I don't OC myself, I do have to ask, "Why should justification be necessary?"

Fred Fuller
May 16, 2014, 02:40 PM
Here's some "gun sense" from Colorado -

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377985/sara-gets-her-gun-charles-c-w-cooke

Interesting, how much "gun sense" sounds like nonsense...

barnbwt
May 16, 2014, 06:30 PM
Glad she seems to have gotten the issue resolved. But it is pretty the exact premise of the movie Brazil...:scrutiny:

TCB

grampster
May 16, 2014, 09:55 PM
The reason you see more open carry is because of the stupid rules with respect to concealed carry. Concealed carry is just that...it is concealed. No one except you knows you have a firearm. Yet the government in its wisdom outlaws concealed carry in places where lots of people gather because...because...because...ummm, I still can't figure that one out. It's against the law to carry a firearm that no one except you know you have and that somehow is "common sense".

For every action their is a reaction. That's science. It works in the social genre' as well. If the hysterical anti's would just catch a deep breath and quit worrying about honest law abiding citizens, who have been background checked and have at least enough training to know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of, who is carrying a fully concealed weapon, most of the folks who feel it incumbent upon them to open carry to make a point, probably wouldn't and the gun hysteria would go away.

Criminals are law breakers. Also there are some fairly irrational folks walking around who, because they are not under supervision anymore, don't take their meds and they listen to voices who tell them to go full barking moonbat. There are no laws ever that will stop that. America will never, ever turn over their firearms, ever. There are thousands of laws on the books now and those laws have not ever stopped mass murderers once. What makes you think more laws would be effective.

Sorry, son. You are living in a dream world that if it came true would become a nightmare world. Read your history books and watch the news.

pezo
May 16, 2014, 11:29 PM
Ok! So many great responses from our posters. Answers, opinions and facts. Great dialogue and engagement on our end and very high road! Now I ask? Where is are OP? We win with logic and fact. They hit, run and hide. Honestly, is there an actual anti who has the you know what's to be honest and stay and engage? I think NOT. If this is the case then we may have it easier than we thought. Geez

USAF_Vet
May 16, 2014, 11:42 PM
Here is some gun sense I can get on board with: Gun safety education in public schools from the 5th grade on, with live fire training for High School Juniors and Seniors. Rifle teams in high school and universities, more public ranges, more positive gun education through out society rather than spreading fear.

Fred Fuller
May 17, 2014, 01:36 AM
http://bearingarms.com/long-slow-death-gun-control-cult/?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Long, Slow Death Of The Gun Control Cult

Posted by Bob Owens on May 15, 2014 at 10:43 am
=================================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K8tMr6rN_k

Colion Noir for NRA News Commentators: Ep. 57 "You're the Problem"

Published on May 15, 2014
Colion Noir breaks down the common misconception that gun owners are essentially a ticking time bomb.

barnbwt
May 17, 2014, 02:16 AM
"Honestly, is there an actual anti who has the you know what's to be honest and stay and engage?"
To be fair, it would be like a ten-on-one 'debate,' and it's both really intimidating and really difficult to keep that many conversations straight. That's why debates are moderated and only have a couple participants ;). Now, honesty, there's no excuse for lacking, but it's entirely possible the OP truly thinks they support the RKBA by their stances; like I said before, we all make mistakes, and we can learn from them :) (I'm still skeptical of this, since he talks just like an activist, but I am easily wrong in my estimation since I've never met him, of course)

"Here is some gun sense I can get on board with: Gun safety education in public schools from the 5th grade on, with live fire training for High School Juniors and Seniors. Rifle teams in high school and universities, more public ranges, more positive gun education through out society rather than spreading fear."
Train up the young in the proper way and they will not deviate. I think getting our sport back into schools is our only ultimate salvation. I actually think controlling the content in schools is the victory to be won by any sort of political and ideological dominance, at least if you actually have an interest in governance (which is arguable with regards to the party not historically well represented in the education sphere). It gets you inter-generational momentum on your side, and keeps you from having to actively seek out, convert, and retain supporters all at the same time.

TCB

Midwest
May 17, 2014, 06:28 AM
Here is some gun sense I can get on board with: Gun safety education in public schools from the 5th grade on, with live fire training for High School Juniors and Seniors. Rifle teams in high school and universities, more public ranges, more positive gun education through out society rather than spreading fear.
There used to be "Rod and Gun" clubs in schools. In addition to that. There have been numerous threads over the years of accounts of guns being bought to schools so the kids could go hunting on the way home after school, or even shoot downstairs within the school.

When guns and schools were pals
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-198974.html

"Twas routine to have our deer rifles and shotguns hanging in the racks in our trucks and cars for all to see ... in the school parking lot."


Tell me about the 1950's
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-598135.html

"The high school ROTC had a rifle range in the basement, and I could carry my Remington 513T to school in the morning and back home at night, just walking on city streets, with no hassle. The high school principal would come down and shoot with us frequently. The school had a girl's rifle team also, through the phys. ed. department. It was considered a cool thing...several of the cheerleaders shot on the girl's team."


Did you take a gun to school for a project?
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-744710.html

"When I was a kid I would often keep a shotgun or rifle in the truck gun rack at school."

"School bus driver carried a shotgun behind the drivers seat, when ever a pheasant presented itself on the country back roads, he'd stop and take a shot."

"I knew quite a few guys who kept their shotguns in their lockers between October and January. When you have a teacher asking to borrow some shells from one of the students so he doesn't have to go back home before going hunting after school, you know it was definitely a different time. That was in the late 80s. "

.

shootingthebreeze
May 17, 2014, 12:32 PM
...not hiding just been working and doing a lot of other things!!

Several have commented here about training. having been in the military 20 years, firearm training and security are top priorities. Converting these in the civilian world, it would be nice to see mandatory classes for new gun owners, those who never had one before to include range time as well. Security tips, as well, would give the new owner important information on gun safety, usage, maintenance and security.
Pezo, I'm not an anti it is funny to see how when any discussion on tightening gun laws translates immediately as anti gun. Any suggestion to make the US a safer place relating to firearms immediately brands the person as anti gun. I'm far from being anti gun. I can read, however, and places like California have had a decrease in gun deaths since California enacted stricter gun laws. It's a statistical fact.
The main thing I wanted to bring out is that firearms today are in the spotlight and firearms in this country are being scrutinized. This scrutiny is not going away and the debate on firearms is also not going away. It may not grow at the Federal Level but we are seeing a lot more scrutiny at the state level. We are seeing this all over the country as states are taking a hard look at gun laws in existence.

benEzra
May 17, 2014, 12:50 PM
places like California have had a decrease in gun deaths since California enacted stricter gun laws.
The nation *as a whole* has seen gun homicide decrease by half during the same time frame, and gun murders are now at their lowest level in many decades, despite (or "because of", if one would prefer to read it that way) the huge increases in CCW and "assault weapon" ownership, and the general easing of restrictions on where law-abiding individuals may legally carry.

Gun accidents are also at their lowest level since this country was founded.

And FWIW, California's gun laws are an example of the nightmare scenario at the bottom of the slippery slope. Magazine capacities are limited to 2/3 the capacity of a Henry or Winchester carbine from the 1860s/1870s, and the most popular civilian rifles in the nation are banned there unless you make the magazine nondetachable (and they are trying to ban even those). They even legislate rifle stock shape, for crying out loud. CCW is limited to those with political connections, and the chief qualification for approval seems to be your ability to donate to your local LEO's political campaign. You could not pay me enough to move there, so holding them up as an example of a reasonable end state is rather counterproductive to your argument, IMO.

If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment.
You are arguing that U.S. gun owners should follow the example of British and Australian gun owners, and preemptively surrender on facets of the issue in order to appear "reasonable" to the prohibitionists.

Let me ask you---how'd that work out for British and Australian gun owners? That approach was an *unmitigated disaster*. Preemptive surrender didn't save their gun rights; it simply gave them away without a fight.

Owner of a Rossi .38/.357 revolver 2.5 inch barrel, rubber grips; Springfield Champion 1911 style .45 (my favorite); Kahr .45; Kahr .380; Remington 12 gauge police shotgun.
In gun-control speak, I see one or more Saturday Night Specials, a military-style semiautomatic pistol designed for war, and a .729 caliber riot gun and possible "assault weapon". I'd be cautious about the preemptive surrender thing, because the people you are endorsing are *not* OK with you owning those things long term.

hso
May 17, 2014, 01:21 PM
Looking at data in the Uniform Crime Report from the FBI also shows that California has higher rates, rates and not gross numbers are needed for comparrisons, of firearms related deaths than states without the proposed restrictions. The FBI and CDC data show that there's no correlation between restrictive firearms laws vs. firearms related deaths. States with heavy restrictions have higher rates than those without while at the same time other states with heavy restrictions have lower rates than some states without them. From a data standpoint that translates to a lack of correlation between firearms laws and firearms related deaths. At the same time that the rate of firearms homicides have been falling Forbes just pointed out that the firearms industry has grown 97% since 2008 creating from about 166,000jobs in '08 to more than 245,000 jobs in 2013. If sales of firearms have grown, firearms homicides have dropped and states with restrictive firearms laws may or may not have lower rates of firearms homicides than those without restrictive laws related to firearms where is there any correlation indicating any benefit to restrictive firearms laws?

IOW, firearms related deaths aren't controlled by firearms related laws in any statistically relevant way.

Restrictive firearms laws simply play no statisticaly relevant role in reducing firearms related deaths and proposing restrictive firearms laws benefits no one but the fear mongers who profit from distracting the public from the real causes of violence. Worse, the cost imposed upon the segments of American society that can least afford to pay for permitting and licensing and the training required by those laws are akin to the Jim Crow laws directed at those same segments of society. They are unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally, racist and classist when they put an undue burden on minorities and the poor. If the proposed restrictions even played a statistically valid role in reducing rates of firearms related deaths, which they don't, it would still be revolting to propose disinfranchising entire ethnic and economic segmenets of society due to the equivilant of a Poll Tax.

barnbwt
May 17, 2014, 02:47 PM
"Converting these in the civilian world, it would be nice to see mandatory classes for new gun owners, those who never had one before to include range time as well."
And it would be nice to have an educated electorate, and people that know how to read clear warning labels, and...there's only so much you can do, and considering mandatory training has been abused a great many times to simply make gun ownership more difficult/expensive, I reject the premise it would really help any. Mandatory training in schools, I could get behind, but not once a citizen is of legal age that their constitutional human rights are fully in play.

Not one of the groups advocating mandatory training as a condition of ownership endorses teaching anything about guns in schools, or to children in general that I'm aware of. That should speak volumes about the motivation.

"Looking at data in the Uniform Crime Report from the FBI also shows that California has higher rates, rates and not gross numbers are needed for comparisons, of firearms related deaths than states without the proposed restrictions."
Of course, how else could they have convinced people they needed the restrictions in the first place? :D The fact that the stats don't drop markedly upon law passage speaks more volumes about the effectiveness of this line of thinking, regardless whether the rate is higher or lower than other areas ;)

TCB

shootingthebreeze
May 17, 2014, 03:22 PM
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/03/striking-relationship-between-gun-safety-laws-and-firearm-deaths/4902/

Even medical reports line up with this article showing a significant decrease of gun deaths with more stringent gun laws. Look at the map.

barnbwt
May 17, 2014, 04:07 PM
From the link;
"The study, by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health, uses a measure of state-by-state "legislative strength" of gun control policies tracked by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence"

Moving along...

"The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides, though it notes that these findings are limited to associations and could not determine precise cause-and-effect."

So, the study sounds pretty much inconclusive already...

"Gun-related deaths were measured per 100,000 people for both homicides and suicides based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"
Which no doubt rolls in justifiable homicide as per usual --the good 'ol Brady statistician trademark

http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/legacy/2013/03/07/maplarge.jpg
That map basically matches our guns per capita expectations*. I would submit there is a much more strongly correlated relationship between gun laws and reduced firearms ownership, than there is with a reduction in violence.

*Which are suspiciously hard to find on web searches. There's about a billion versions of the same "gun deaths per capita" map that show up everywhere, and then nothing but plots of various gun laws by state. I can't find even a single estimation of gun ownership or NICS checks by state, which is an astonishingly important figure missing from the 'debate'.

More astonishing since there are another billion copies of the "Guns per capita" nation-level world maps out there...but not a one broken down by state level :scrutiny:
http://www.frontierlandpost.com/uploads/7/1/7/8/7178775/2587968_orig.jpg

barnbwt
May 17, 2014, 04:14 PM
I did find one non-vetted, Reddit-sourced infographic that purports to show guns/capita
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BmJ0sd4XzTA/UBGlpDVugcI/AAAAAAAAACE/jE3NiGKEPZY/s1600/StateGuns.jpg

It is somewhat disturbing to see so much of only one view on the web, though, and of only a single dataset, no less (the all-encompassing "gun crime by state" chart). May be related to the NRA not having anywhere near the establishment resources at its beck and call to generate data for infographics as the government-aligned (if not officially affiliated) anti-gun groups like VPC (Brady) or MAIG (Bloomberg).

Which is why I'll renew the query I've made a few times; "does the NRA have a think tank actively researching gun issues that could help us to easily support arguments the way the anti's do?". I personally think an overlay of gun laws and ownership would be shockingly correlated, especially if animated chronologically and broken down to county or city level. That's a whole lot of research grant money, though.

TCB

vamo
May 17, 2014, 04:14 PM
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013...m-deaths/4902/

Even medical reports line up with this article showing a significant decrease of gun deaths with more stringent gun laws. Look at the map.

Any study that list suicides and accidents a long side murders is inherently flawed. Of course states with less firearms per capita are going to have less gun accidents and people wishing to take their own life will find some other means.

The problem of violence is unfortunately one that will not be solved overnight. People are just not going to wake up one day and decide to stop killing each other. However, we are doing better every year we become less and less violent, (10 years now since the AWB expired).

I am still failing to see the logic of you argument that "restrictions will in the long run protect the 2nd amendment. As if the people who hate guns today will decide that background checks, registration, training reqs, safe storage, etc. will be enough. No, so long as no history of violence Joe Average can own almost any gun he wants for any purpose these groups will not sleep. So neither can we. We cannot afford to give them even the smallest victory without getting somethin in return.

Why is it the "middle ground compromise" always involves us losing a previously held right and getting nothing in return.

Spats McGee
May 17, 2014, 04:57 PM
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013...m-deaths/4902/

Even medical reports line up with this article showing a significant decrease of gun deaths with more stringent gun laws. Look at the map.
Problem #1: So what?

More specifically: We're talking about a fundamental, individual right. Statistics are a terrible way to try to determine who gets which fundamental, individual rights. I can virtually guarantee you that if we eliminated the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, conviction rates would rise and crime rates would drop. Do you think that makes it a good idea?

Further, we're talking about my right to own the weapons with which to defend my home and my family. Given that I've never shot anyone, you're talking about restricting my rights based on what other people did. I have a problem with that.

Problem #2: The study starts with Brady numbers. That's hardly an independent source. You do know that Brady used to be called "Handgun Control, Inc.," right?

Brady is notorious for skewing the numbers. If I remember correctly, they like to measure "gun deaths." For purposes of their studies, a "gun death" is a "gun death" is a "gun death." That means that a violent home invader who is shot and killed by a little old lady defending her home counts exactly the same as a small child caught in a drive-by shooting. And those are counted the same as suicides.

You also have to dig down into their definitions to see how they get their numbers. I can't seem to find it right now, but there's at least one "study" that they've done on "children killed by guns," in which their definition of a "child" included anyone up to age 25. Think about that. Age 25. In that "study," someone who could get married, have children, drive, buy beer, vote, join the army, and be tried as an adult was treated as a "child."

benEzra
May 17, 2014, 08:45 PM
There is some funny business with their rating of "legislative strength"---which, given that this is a news-magazine graphic based on gun-control-lobby rankings, doesn't surprise me. For instance, they show Maine being 3 out of 4 on the "harsh gun laws" scale, and New Hampshire and Vermont as 2 out of 4 (when Vermont doesn't even require a carry license to carry concealed), but they put Georgia at only 1 out of 4.

It is also sheer chutzpah to say that "assault weapon bans" cause lower homicide rates, when less than 3% of murders are committed with *any* type of rifle, never mind AR's and AK's.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

@shootingthebreeze, do you support restrictions on civilian "assault weapons"? If so, why? And you support restrictions or confiscation of over-10-round magazines?

FWIW, lumping in suicides with homicides in order to obscure the trends (or lack thereof) in homicide data is a staple of gun-control agitprop, and of course they never mention that the U.S. suicide rate is comparable to Europe's, or that the combined murder-suicide rate in the gun control paradise of Japan is considerably higher than the combined murder-suicide rate in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

hso
May 18, 2014, 12:19 AM
STB,

You should look directly at the FBI UCR and the CDC data. Also, discount suicides since psychologists have consistently pointed out that suicidal individuals use any means available to them and the availability, or lack of availability, of a firearm isn't going to reduce the rate of suicides to within the error of sampling. Simply put, the study cited is flawed because total rates of suicides wont change and laws requiring background checks, registration, training, etc. won't impact suicides, even with a firearm, anyway. Homicides vs. restrictions is the issue.

Midwest
May 18, 2014, 12:46 AM
It may not grow at the Federal Level but we are seeing a lot more scrutiny at the state level. We are seeing this all over the country as states are taking a hard look at gun laws in existence.

No it isn't the states that are looking at the gun laws, it is anti-gun groups funded by Bloomberg that are "taking a hard look at gun laws". A lot of people worked hard to get restrictions lifted so the public can protect themselves in more locations. Remember what the second amendment is really about. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting paper targets.

"Reasonable Restrictions" and compromises...And what happens when most of the people approve of "reasonable gun restrictions"? This happens.......


http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/img_vk/no-reason_poster.gif


.

USAF_Vet
May 18, 2014, 04:41 AM
Laws don't prevent crimes, they only define crimes.
Last year, or maybe 2012, the handgun registry was on the cropping block, having passed the Senate, and the House and was sitting on Snyder's desk waiting to be signed into oblivion. The ONLY reason it exists is because Snyder got all weak on us and folded to the pressure of the MSP lobbying to keep it.
With pistol registration on its deathbed only a year or so ago, I have serious doubts of adding all other firearms to a pointless and purposeless bureaucratic mess. Gun rights in Michigan have been increasing over the past decade. Shall issue, legalized machine guns, DDs, and AOWs, legalized suppressors, legalized SBRs and SBSs. Legislation to allow CC in PFZs with additional training, which only died because of the MSP lobbying again on false data. The crime rate in the entire state has been dropping, and the pistol registry has not been the reason behind it.

Look at Detroit, always been high crime rate. In the past few months, how many home invasions have ended with the homeowner defending themselves? People are standing up and saying we're not going to take this crap anymore. His exactly is making it harder to defend oneself going to reduce crime? The guns are out there, criminals will get them, registration and background checks or not. Its the law abiding that won't be able to get them.

Gun control is about people control. Take away the ability for people to fend for themselves, they are forced to rely on government for protection.

DT Guy
May 18, 2014, 10:51 AM
"I'm a gun owner" or "I have a concealed carry license" is the new version of, "but I have a black friend."

OP, you're a gun-grabber; you may or may not be admitting it to yourself, but you are; in fact, you embody the single most common element of the 'grabber' in your basic premise, the belief that YOU should own a gun but unnamed, undefined 'others' should not.

Give up all of your (imaginary?) guns, and then talk about limiting mine. Until then, why not go back to the Huff Post or Democratic Underground? I come here to talk to other pro-gun people, not hear more gibberish using 'data' shown long ago to be political crap.

Larry

Midwest
May 18, 2014, 11:09 AM
Instead of people posing as they are one of us while reading from the anti's playbook of "reasonable restrictions" , "mag limits", "UBC" and other nonsense while promoting and/or supporting anti-gun groups like Mom's funded by rabid anti-gun Bloomberg.

I just wish people would admit straight out that they are anti-gun and then we could have a real honest debate here no holds barred with just the facts. No shouting, no finger pointing. Our facts versus their facts.

Of course that won't happen, because in my opinion they don't have a leg to stand on.

.

shootingthebreeze
May 18, 2014, 11:41 AM
DT Guy, Midwest, what do you want me to do? Publish my firearm serial numbers?
That's not going to happen. As I SAID before (gosh you are all hard headed) anytime someone has views about better gun safety and better gun laws in the US one is labeled as a "gun grabber."
That is not the case with me. E mail me. I'm quite a relaxed person and easy to talk with. If you're civil then I will reciprocate. My comment about you being hard headed is the strongest comment I have made I never attack another person because of their views.
I have my opinions as a gun owner. They differ from your opinion. I respect your stand-respect mine. But what really angers me is the inference that I lie. That makes me quite angry. E mail me, then I'll give you my private e mail and I'll even take a pic of a few of my handguns (don't like to on a public forum like this) but don't infer that I lie. That really is disrespectful. It's like saying I never served 20 years in the military-I did so that you and I can express themselves freely.

pezo
May 18, 2014, 12:27 PM
What rubbed me the wrong way? It was the assumption the average shooter/gun enthusiates would take seriously or subscribe to the fallacy that any groups like moms demand action had any other agenda than to restrict a guaranteed right in the constitution. Based on false belief it would benefit society. When I want advice on gun safety I look to a group educated on the topic (like the NRA). Not a hoplo phobic group of mis guided people supported by a billionaire extreme leftest. 99 percent of the shooting community I'd almost bet doesn't support your views on the issue and many people of the non shooting community who actually thinks about the issue probably won't agree with you. So you can have your opinions. Just don't think for a second your opinions are main stream among gun owners. When we had a horrific crime occur that involved the murder of several school children. Inst Instead of real solutions to protect our kids, like allowing cpl in schools or at least some armed protection. We instead were given proven non effective gun control legislation. That was an insult and a slap in the face. Being an ex military man you claim to be you should re alize the importance of maintaining our rights and the effectiveness of armed protection.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 18, 2014, 12:48 PM
That is not the case with me. E mail me. I'm quite a relaxed person and easy to talk with. If you're civil then I will reciprocate.

Then why are you ignoring all the posters who quite civilly addressed points that YOU brought up (gun deaths per state as linked to gun ownership, etc.)? Why did you skip right to the few people you felt attacked you and ignore all the other comments?

DT Guy
May 18, 2014, 01:31 PM
Perhaps you do own guns, STP; after all, Nancy Pelosi and Jane Fonda both do.

But anyone-ANYONE-who reads the Moms Demand Stuff propaganda and can support it is a 'gun grabber', plain and simple, admonitions to the contrary notwithstanding.

I don't want to email you, dialogue with you or look at your point of view, anymore than I need to revisit communism, fascism, religiously based government....they're all flawed and immoral ideologies, just like gun control.

So no, I don't want to 'open a dialogue', 'see your point of view' or have a 'common sense discussion' about gun control. I want to oppose it, and oppose those who propose it; that's what you can expect from most gun rights activists. If you don't want opposition, stop proposing rehashed gun control lines.


Larry

Sam1911
May 18, 2014, 02:10 PM
STB, I appreciate that you've stayed engaged and not tossed out a few hand grenades of anti-gun talking points and then disappeared. Sticking around to at least consider the replies is a start.

But I would ask that you take the time to answer the folks who have answered YOU.

The statistics you quote are not showing what you've been lead to believe they are.

The plans you've espoused are demonstrably and quite logically unable to produce the positive ends you're seeking -- and have equally demonstrably been fundamental parts of sucking freedom down the drain in places that have become "failed states" from a gun rights standpoint.

In the face of astronomical gun ownership growth, and the steady erosion of strict gun control laws over the last 20 years, gun accidents and crime rates have FALLEN.

So, do you accept that you were mislead, swallowed bad propaganda, or found yourself where you are at through your own mistakes of reasoning? Or do you bull ahead anyway supporting the same things in defiance of fact and wiser counsel?

This is a test.

zeek96
May 18, 2014, 02:34 PM
Shootingthebreeze, you have you beliefs and reasons and if you want volunteer to register your firearms with state or federal agencies and anyone else that has the same concerns about their guns should do the same. Believing every gun owner should have to and looking to make it law for everyone in my opinion should not be forced on us. Look at New York State as an example. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and crime is everywhere involving guns specifically handguns. You do not have any right to touch or own a handgun in that state. You do t have that right, nor does any citizen that lives outside that state. There is not option. You would have to reside in the state and take the ccw course, go I front of a judge and state your case as to why you need a ccw, wait and see if the judge allows you the right to own a handgun and if you have the right to carry it. There are two options ownership and right to carry concealed. Then if you are allowed to own a handgun go pay for one take the recite while leaving the handgun at the store. Go to the county office to have serial number put on your permit after a background check is do e then go pick your permit up and paper stating you are allowed to have it and then pick up the handgun you purchased previously at the store. Guess what criminals don't for some reason do this. I am not sure why but they don't. They steal guns from breakins or get them from other criminals and use them to break more laws. Now a legal resident citizen would take the 6-8 months to obtain the permit and hope the privilege is given to them by the judge to carry concealed to protect them selves. Now the state and the moms organization and Bloomberg and others want even stricter control because crime is still a problem with the use of handguns and other firearms. Where does it end? It ends when they are all gone. Everyone of them and that's what the politicians want and these organizations for it is never enough. It is fine for a politician or the rich to pay for body guards carrying what they declare assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and other items citizens of this country cannot posses in that state or the country. Ask yourself why are they allowed this safety and we are not? They are more important to the masses? Only in their own mind. Registration is the beck I g of a path that has only one ending, confiscation wether now are later that is what it will be used for. NY started with handguns, now it is shot guns and rifles that have a pistol grip and fire one round at a time But do t need to use a hand action to load the next bullet. Hundreds of thousand of legal citizens are now considered felons because their grandfathers shotgun is now an assault rifle. You say it won't go farther you are wrong for the next step are firearms that can shoot a certain distance accurately for they are sniper weapons. Your 270 you shot would be classified as a banned rifle as well and you for touching and using it would be a felon as well. It won't stop. And buying into the propaganda that they will stop at a point is utter foolishness. There are plenty of examples in this country to prove this point. If you want to stop crime and violence why not join a group that mandates all people be checked by government approved agencies for mental illness and force everyone to go through a mandatory yearly exam. I am sure they would find many people that would do harm to others and then incarcerate them before they can hurt anyone. There is a real solution. Just imagine the lives that would be saved. It is the same theory your organization is saying and Bloombergs group is spouting but done for all. If people oppose that idea they must be crazy like the rest of us opposing further laws against law biding gun owners.

barnbwt
May 18, 2014, 02:38 PM
As I SAID before (gosh you are all hard headed) anytime someone has views about better gun safety and better gun laws in the US one is labeled as a "gun grabber."
The prevailing view is that those who support gun-grabber laws/legislation/theory, are gun grabbers. I respect that you have an opinion, I expect you understand that it is completely at odds with those of us who wish to promote the free exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights. Since I have yet to see a participant of either side of the debate with committed views actually land in the middle (seems we always sort ourselves into gunnies & grabbers), that is why I and probably most others are unsure of where you actually sit as compared to what you claim.

The perceived duplicity is that you put forth the policies --which you now quite plainly admit you agree with-- as something tolerable you disagreed with, but... that the rest of us should all accept grudgingly in the hopes of protecting what little of the right to keep and bear arms we maintain. Maybe you didn't realize it yourself, but your support of HB4774 was kind of put forward under false pretenses or at least illogical pretenses (that you support it in a misguided effort to protect the RKBA)

We've had anti-gun folks on here before (search for the dialogues with timmy4 which were mostly very intelligent and useful to both him and us, aside from occasional forum trolls that would come along and periodically shout him down --our side isn't infallible when it comes to debating, either)
Why Keep Bringing Up the 2nd Amendment (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=698725)
Why I am in Favor of a Ban on High Capacity Gun Magazines (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=698918)

He was open, up front, and plain about where he was coming from, and then put forth his arguments. He was also very honest about areas of the issue he lacked knowledge (as was I in saying I don't know for sure how gun control tracks with gun ownership, but merely suspect there is a strong correlation) and in fact said this was his reason for posting, rather than to try and convert the opinions of obviously opinionated people. As I recall, he did learn quite a few things, and we all learned quite a few things about how anti's arrive at their points of view (and IIRC, he basically switched his view on magazine bans, but still supported BGCs when he ceased posting)

"STB, I appreciate that you've stayed engaged and not tossed out a few hand grenades of anti-gun talking points and then disappeared."
Likewise, this has been an interesting discussion with some points I'd not heard before. FWIW, I don't think you're a troll, or anything (rather, a valuable poster on handgun/CCW stuff in your area), but perhaps not as committed or resolved (as in having solved all the questions) a proponent of the RKBA as you might think. Discussion like this helps everyone clear and organize their views, which is why I find them so useful and enjoyable.

TCB

barnbwt
May 18, 2014, 02:41 PM
""places that have become "failed states" from a gun rights standpoint."
Among other standpoints (almost uniformly). That's a national plot I want to see :evil:

Jeez, Zeke; paragraphs, please :D

My example for where the American Gun Control Rabbit Hole leads is Washington DC before the most recent court rulings there. The guns were banned. Period. And, now that they're being drug back from that point, kicking and screaming, claws flailing, The Next Great Hope is a system so onerous that poor black people in the horrifically crime-ridden ghettoes will be unable to meet the cost/time/training requirements. That gun control is historically pegged, not "correlated" with racial motives is also reason enough to be highly skeptical of it ('those people' can't be trusted with guns because they're scarcely people at all)

TCB

shootingthebreeze
May 18, 2014, 05:14 PM
I did a half hour ago post a long response to various members because I had time but the site blocked me posting even though I had signed in. A glitch.
Now not having any more time I just would like to say that HB 4774 will probably die due to Republican blocking in the Michigan legislature. Does that bother me? No. I never get bothered about that because I deeply respect out form of government. I know some people who are livid at that prospect but I never consider failed bills a failure, actually I consider all failed bills a success because they represent our checks and balances and a healthy government system.
HB 4774 will never pass in Michigan presently. If a Democratic shift occurs perhaps and I say perhaps because that still is not guaranteed some Democrats could vote against. Does that upset me? Again no. Why? Because it's how are system works and it works very well (though it's messy at times).
Lets see if this loads.

barnbwt
May 18, 2014, 06:01 PM
So what's your point? If the MI government is "inevitably" swung (more) firmly back toward Democrats & assorted gun-banners, what does ceding ground now buy us? If you agree/disagree with the text of the bill, why would you not care about its passage/failure? I can't tell if you're walking back what you said previously, or if you even had a real opinion in the first place, as opposed to a feeling.

*BTW, never, not never do anything to reload a screen on this site without copying the text box your message is in in its entirety. On real long stuff, I just type it in Notepad in another window. Too many posts lost in the sea of electrons.

TCB

Leanwolf
May 18, 2014, 06:24 PM
There is an old saying I heard many times when I was growing up. "Life is hard by the yard but it is a cinch by the inch."

The anti-gun crowd knows very well they can not ban and confiscate our firearms all in one fell swoop, so they practice the inch-by-inch-by-inch, or step-by-step-by-step strategy. A new "common sense" law here, a new "common sense" law there, and then another and another and another ad infinitum, ad nauseum, until they have achieved their final goal, overall confiscation.

Two laws they MUST have over and above all others, is complete registration of all the firearms by all (honest) citizens, and the other is Universal Background Checks by Big Brother before giving permission for anyone to buy, sell, trade, or gift a firearm of any kind.

Once those two laws are in place, their final goal is only a matter of time. Big Brother knows where the guns are and then as Sen. Dianne Feinstein stated on CBS 60 Minutes teevee, "Turn them in, Mr. and Mr. America, or we'll come get them!"

Shootingthebreeze, I am surprised you're unable to comprehend this. I am also surprised you are unable to understand Human Nature as it applies to those power mad politicians and mega-wealthy individuals who seek ultimate control over us, the worker peasants and serfs. (And that is precisely how they think of us.)

Even though there are already more than 23,000 anti-guns laws on the books now, Federal, State, and local, for the gun grabbers, there are never, ever, enough laws. More and more and more laws will finally lead us to Their Brave New Utopia... whether we like it or not.

Just my thoughts on Bloomberg's and George Soros' "common sense" laws.

L.W.

3D's
May 18, 2014, 08:19 PM
More stringent gun laws are doing a fine job in Chicago, aren't they?

barnbwt
May 18, 2014, 09:51 PM
"Human Nature as it applies to those power mad politicians and mega-wealthy individuals who seek ultimate control over us, the worker peasants and serfs."
Ironically, it's not "evil" human tendencies so much as ambition driving this. Think about it this way; you're the head of an advocacy group (or gunning to be one), and you've just won a big victory for your supporters. Now what? Do we claim victory, plant the flag, and dissolve the group now that there's no work left to be done? No. We double down, find or invent new reasons to keep the goods from the supporters flowing, and to maintain the reputation we built through so much arduous labor.

The gun rights groups haven't calling the shots long enough to have much opportunity to reach a Zealous Escape Velocity or whatever you want to call it, but if we keep winning battles it will surely happen. Legitimately radical or controversial proposals to make gun ownership/carry mandatory, demand ammo/gun subsidization, and seek to export our gun culture/laws to foreign nations or allies (placing an embargo or tariffs on Japanese arms until they make their laws more "reasonable", for instance ;)). We're not there yet, but it will happen, and a lot of people that blindly follow gun rights leaders will fall for it, same as what happened with anti gun people who kept right on truckin' after the Brady Bill which was the whole reason for their existence got passed.

TCB

Walkalong
May 18, 2014, 10:59 PM
(gosh you are all hard headed)Why, because we won't swallow the baloney your pushing?

You were challenged to answer questions but again just posted how good a person you were instead of answering a single question.

I'm glad you believe in our system, if only you could believe in the 2nd amendment and the people, instead of thinking the people are too irresponsible to be trusted with weaponry.

Geno
May 18, 2014, 11:35 PM
Aren't you guys going a bit heavy-handed on shootingthebreeze?! We're here to pull folks our way. If we go too heavy-handed, we risk loosing the support we desperately desire...more flies with honey an' all that. I make public my apology to shootingthebreeze for advising that s/he "...grow-up..." in my previous post. Clearly I was errant, and it is I who has had to "...grow-up...". I won't make that mistake twice!

Geno

Walkalong
May 19, 2014, 08:41 AM
Well, I have definitely been hard on the message, as I am strongly against "common sense gun laws" because they are anything but common sense and only more attempts at chipping away at our freedoms and won't help us preserve the 2nd amendment, IMHO.

I do hope I have not been hard on shootingthebreeze personally, and only the message.

pezo
May 19, 2014, 08:46 AM
With the popularity and increase in shall issue and people licensed to carry. The extra million plus memebers added to the NRA. The recent court wins in favor of gun rights. The noted increase in shooter gun enthusiates particularly the newer generations. Every younger vet I know is extremely passionate of their gun rights. With the successful and unprecident recall of two politicians In a state that had gun restrictions shoved through. Now we have the Detroit chief of police on the cover of an NRA magazine. Highly publicized events of citizens using weapons to defend themselves. I see the beginning of the end for gun restriction groups. So why would we "give in" a little when pro gunners are essentially winning. That's like the nazi's telling the allies they need to quit before it gets worse, during the battle of Berlin.

Geno
May 19, 2014, 12:19 PM
Walkalong:

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. :D I get tired of these kinds of threads, trying to get someone on our side, when I frequently think the person is not sincere in their post.

Geno

benEzra
May 19, 2014, 01:16 PM
I did a half hour ago post a long response to various members because I had time but the site blocked me posting even though I had signed in.
I hope you will take the time to re-post it when you can.

I very much want to know whether you support restrictions on civilian "assault weapons", and if so, your rationale for banning the most popular civilian rifles in the nation, when rifles are consistently the least misused of all firearms.

I'd also like to know whether you support restrictions on over-10-round magazines (given that 15-round rifles have been mainstream since the 1860s/1870s, and over-10-round handguns have been mainstream since the 1930s).

And since you bring up "universal background checks", I'd be curious to know specifics. For example, do you believe it should be a crime to allow one's domestic partner to access the firearms in one's gun safe, if neither partner is a prohibited person (or heck, if your partner has a CCW and owns other guns)? Should it be a crime for a gun owner to go on a 10-day business trip without moving his/her guns out of their home or making their domestic partner leave the premises? Because those two scenarios are precisely what UBC proposals tried to make into Federal felonies last year, among other things.

The entire gun control movement since the late 1980s has been based on bait-and-switch tactics---talking up a rosy facade of safety and responsibility, while actually putting forward very ugly legislation that targets lawful and responsible ownership rather than criminal misuse. The proposals advanced in 2013, including the NY SAFE Act and the Colorado bans, are Exhibit A. Generalities can always sound good, but I'd like to know specifics.

pezo
May 20, 2014, 07:29 PM
Crickets chirping....

barnbwt
May 20, 2014, 08:19 PM
yeesh, are we still doin' this?

Oh, and what's HB4774 doing these days? :D

TCB

DT Guy
May 20, 2014, 08:34 PM
Same thing Pizzapinochle did; come by, spit out a few flawed 'facts' grabbed from a Bloomberg primer and then disappear when the actual debate starts.

For all the talk of 'dialogue', they're looking to push their agenda; when the 'dialogue' goes the other way, driven by facts and logic, they have no choice but to disappear.


Larry

barnbwt
May 21, 2014, 12:40 AM
Well, debating from a losing position is what trolls do, and neither of those guys are trolls, so...if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all (that goes for all parties on the forums :))

TCB

DT Guy
May 21, 2014, 07:42 AM
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, and then correcting me for (not) using the word I never used.

I will note that my statement seems to be correct re: their departures, however.

Larry

RetiredUSNChief
May 22, 2014, 06:24 PM
If stricter gun laws are not enacted, the Second Amendment itself will be in danger eventually. Ignoring gun sense in America will eventually weaken the Second Amendment. No one here wants that including me.

Hmmm...does this sound familiar:

"Hammsbeer you're an adult and you have a right to own firearms and shoot at the range.
I have met some people who are rabid anti firearm and actually "criminalize" firearm owners in their mind and in the mind of others.
It seems with that type of group that if a person owns one firearm they "must be a bad person."
Just do what you do. One response would be "I respect your First Amendment Rights and wouldn't you be upset if there was a drive to repeal the First Amendment. Thus respect my Second Amendment rights as well." Place another right they cherish on their laps and ask them if they would be willing to give it up."

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9325013#post9325013


So, riddle me this my friend: What made you do a 180 on your previous espoused stance with respect to the Second Amendment?

If you enjoyed reading about "Hb 4774 mi" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!