Here We Go Again 1994 Redux

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the "militia" is the National Guard, why do several states, including New York and Tennessee, have organized militias separate from the National Guard?

The New York State Militia and Tennessee State guard report to the governor and cannot be federalized. Kinda hard to mobilize the National Guard for a State emergency (usually natural disaster) if the NG has been deployed overseas by the feds.

See "State defense force" at Wikipedia.
 
Rep Steube of Florida made an OUTSTANDING point in Congress today, speaking remotely from his home, he pointed out that the ban on "high capacity" magazines effectively outlaws most semi-automatic handguns currently on the market. He demonstrated with three of his own handguns how a magazine smaller than what the gun was designed for doesn't fit. IOW the bill is actually a stealth method for outlawing almost all guns. MUST WATCH THIS! https://www.foxnews.com/politics/co...heila-jackson-lee-republican-guns-steube-greg
 
Im not US citizens and i know this topic is hornest nest for you guys, but somehow i want to help by pointing on some things what i see - mayabe because im not personally involved

1) There is problem with violence and mass attacks in US - in some post (not just here) i kinda feel that some ppl dont want recognize it. Now the existence of problem doesnt mean its guns fault and that they need to be restricted
2) It seems that most common targets are hospitals and schools, that indicate more deep moral problem because those places are ussually protect by society moral code
3) Ussually attackers dont care about consequences - i would say that is also huge factor and indicator
4) Fireaarms makes those attack easier - hold your horses, not saying restrictions are way how to solve this, but superiority of firearm over stick is just fact
5) Gun community seems to just oppose every restriction and instead promotes arming everybody - we all want to protect our hobbies (right, if you want) and somehow expand it, but arming everybody isnt solutions. In same way, there shouldnt be just blind opposition against "efforts" (maybe wrong one, but still effort) to solve or decrease number one problem. Instead gun community should say - we dont think this will work, what about this...
6) I can be wrong in all points, im not local, i dont see into local politics or whats your pro-gun groups doing

While keeping point number 6 in mind, i would say the problem is morale and stress related, its not created by guns, but its multiplied by gun (gun itself is force multiplier so...). BUT if is majority of attackers "mentally not well people", you dont need restrict guns for all, just for those ppl. Certanly not by SBR braces and other bonkers ideas.

So i would propose to get rid of all restriction on semi-automatic guns (but you will still have to settle with limited mags in some states i guess), just cathegorize it as its common in Europe (hunting guns - looong, limited mags, long guns - essentially what ppl see as rifles, short guns - SBR and hanguns - just pistols and revolvers) in exchange... and now read it till end before you enter into your rage mode - need of gun licence to buy gun, felony in case if you sell or give gun to somebody without gun licence, obligation to secure gun against miss-use by person without gun licence or theft
Gun licence - given to US history and citizens feel about government, there is few ways how to do it:
1) Federal and/or state licence - if you get federal licence, it applies in all state, state one is just local
2) Acredited organization/company - government give licence to some organizations or companies making tham responsible for managing gun licences without giving data back to goverment

Requirment to get gun licence should be based on extense of gun licence (mentioned cathegories) - health check, test about gun laws, use, maintance and so (in Czech its 28 question + 2 first aid question, from set of about 600 questions), practical test - demonstating that you can handle said gun cathegory.

Gun licence should be mandatory for new shooters, current gun owners would keep current status but would be allowed to sell gun only to person with gun licence or licenced seller + if they want new gun, they have to get gun licence

Another part what you will propably hate - every gun should be traceable. Again, given to US specification, not by goverment without cause. Meaning that every gun and main gun part will have serial number and serial number would be connected to concrete gun licence. These records could be managed for example by manufacturer and accessed by government only in case of investigation of crime (like gun found on person without gun licence, on crime scene etc...)

All this should be supplemented by option to sell previously not registred gun to licenced seller or submit it to LE without penalty

Similiar system already and sucesfully works in Czech republic and some other states.
Its not perfect, but its reasonable effective with good compromise.

The thing is there is no magical solution. As we said before, problem of mass attacks isnt created by guns and instead its deeper moral and social issue, but untill population would not be reasonably sure that some "meth head" cant get legally gun, gun community in US will face more anti gun moves

Its also important to aknowledge that (outside some bussiness and populists lobby) regular ppl just worry about next mass attacks and see guns as meaning how to carry out such attacks

I dont mean to force my hand into your bussiness, just offering my view on things and if i offended somebody i appologize. Its just my opinion and if you want, pick some thoughts from it or just ignore it ;)
 
While I appreciate your position, comparing the US to any other country in the world is moot. Our Constitution clearly enumerates the rights granted to all people at birth. These rights are not granted by the government. A right granted by the government is a privilege and is subject to the whims, restrictions, of the government. A right is not.

We already have to complete a background check anytime we buy a firearm from a dealer. Most states require one even if you buy from a private party. We have something on the order of over 20,000 gun laws when you include all the state and local laws. How is my giving up more of my rights going to change anything? As I've been telling all the people in my life that start the conversation with "I feel", I don't care about your feelings, your feeling do not trump my rights.

As a law abiding gun owner, I absolutely want to see an end to these horrible acts, but punishing me is not the answer. Enforce the laws already on the books, make prison time count, and don't give these attention seekers names a single second of air time. But I digress into things that are off topic for THR.

We, law abiding gun owners, have given away a good portion of our rights in the name of safety. Now they want more. This will not end until there is a total ban. They are coming for our guns. And any gun owner that supports any of the proposed "common sense" gun control is no ally of mine.
 
kwguy said:
So much deja vu.

“That won’t happen…”

“The courts will save us…”

“It’s unconstitutional…”

“It can’t happen…”

Until it does. It’s happened before.
Click to expand...

Ppl just want...it...to...be over. At the expense of, doing ANYTHING. Secondly, they want to do very little to nothing to preserve their rights.

''Just call the delivery, bring me more beer.''

Typing on a forum is ONLY preaching to the choir, and, feel-good stuff.

IMHO , you MUST both 1-contact your elected Reps and 2- donate CA$H to an appropriate organization to fight all of this in court. There's other things to do for sure, but just like firearms safety rules, K.I.S.S. allows more ppl to participate I suppose.
 
Last edited:
The US is not any other country, we are different and special, take the things away that make us special and the next thing you know is we will be like Oz and sending people to camps because they did not get their shot.

I have no real issue with raising the age to 21, we should however raise the voting age to 21 as well. You are telling me that 18yr olds are too stupid to make good decisions, you vote is the most powerful weapon you have.
 
The problem with the proposed "solutions" is there is no evidence they will reduce crime. All it will do is affect law-abiding gun owners. It's a knee jerk reaction. But more importantly, it's a slippery slope that politicians use to move towards full confiscation. This we are sure about, since this procedure has already happened in other countries.
 
Illinois has most of the procedures in place, sans confiscation, that the antis love. Including a basic gun registry. When one buys a firearm from an FFL you must fill out a firearms acquisition form for the state police. It ties that particular gun to you, It requires info including why you are buying it. That form is available to authorities on demand and would be used in a round up scheme if enacted.
Licensure, I have 3. Fingerprints.
Universal background checks FFL and private.
21 for hand gun and long gun purchases
3 day waiting period.
Red flag law.
Ammo kept away from customers until sale.
As stated above a registry has been in effect for decades. I could go on but here is the effect of all this regulation.


A3232x2385%29%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F23595200%2FCARPENTER_052922_05.jpg
51 people shot over Memorial Day weekend in Chicago, the most violent in five years
About half of those shot were on the West Side, most of them in a single police district where there were two mass shootings. At least 23 people were shot on the South Side and four downtown.
apple-touch-icon.png chicago.suntimes.com
 
Idahou said:
Im not US citizens and i know this topic is hornest nest for you guys, but somehow i want to help by pointing on some things what i see - mayabe because im not personally involved

1) There is problem with violence and mass attacks in US - in some post (not just here) i kinda feel that some ppl dont want recognize it. Now the existence of problem doesnt mean its guns fault and that they need to be restricted
2) It seems that most common targets are hospitals and schools, that indicate more deep moral problem because those places are ussually protect by society moral code
3) Ussually attackers dont care about consequences - i would say that is also huge factor and indicator
4) Fireaarms makes those attack easier - hold your horses, not saying restrictions are way how to solve this, but superiority of firearm over stick is just fact
5) Gun community seems to just oppose every restriction and instead promotes arming everybody - we all want to protect our hobbies (right, if you want) and somehow expand it, but arming everybody isnt solutions. In same way, there shouldnt be just blind opposition against "efforts" (maybe wrong one, but still effort) to solve or decrease number one problem. Instead gun community should say - we dont think this will work, what about this...
6) I can be wrong in all points, im not local, i dont see into local politics or whats your pro-gun groups doing

While keeping point number 6 in mind, i would say the problem is morale and stress related, its not created by guns, but its multiplied by gun (gun itself is force multiplier so...). BUT if is majority of attackers "mentally not well people", you dont need restrict guns for all, just for those ppl. Certanly not by SBR braces and other bonkers ideas.

So i would propose to get rid of all restriction on semi-automatic guns (but you will still have to settle with limited mags in some states i guess), just cathegorize it as its common in Europe (hunting guns - looong, limited mags, long guns - essentially what ppl see as rifles, short guns - SBR and hanguns - just pistols and revolvers) in exchange... and now read it till end before you enter into your rage mode - need of gun licence to buy gun, felony in case if you sell or give gun to somebody without gun licence, obligation to secure gun against miss-use by person without gun licence or theft
Gun licence - given to US history and citizens feel about government, there is few ways how to do it:
1) Federal and/or state licence - if you get federal licence, it applies in all state, state one is just local
2) Acredited organization/company - government give licence to some organizations or companies making tham responsible for managing gun licences without giving data back to goverment

Requirment to get gun licence should be based on extense of gun licence (mentioned cathegories) - health check, test about gun laws, use, maintance and so (in Czech its 28 question + 2 first aid question, from set of about 600 questions), practical test - demonstating that you can handle said gun cathegory.

Gun licence should be mandatory for new shooters, current gun owners would keep current status but would be allowed to sell gun only to person with gun licence or licenced seller + if they want new gun, they have to get gun licence

Another part what you will propably hate - every gun should be traceable. Again, given to US specification, not by goverment without cause. Meaning that every gun and main gun part will have serial number and serial number would be connected to concrete gun licence. These records could be managed for example by manufacturer and accessed by government only in case of investigation of crime (like gun found on person without gun licence, on crime scene etc...)

All this should be supplemented by option to sell previously not registred gun to licenced seller or submit it to LE without penalty

Similiar system already and sucesfully works in Czech republic and some other states.
Its not perfect, but its reasonable effective with good compromise.

The thing is there is no magical solution. As we said before, problem of mass attacks isnt created by guns and instead its deeper moral and social issue, but untill population would not be reasonably sure that some "meth head" cant get legally gun, gun community in US will face more anti gun moves

Its also important to aknowledge that (outside some bussiness and populists lobby) regular ppl just worry about next mass attacks and see guns as meaning how to carry out such attacks

I dont mean to force my hand into your bussiness, just offering my view on things and if i offended somebody i appologize. Its just my opinion and if you want, pick some thoughts from it or just ignore it ;)
Click to expand...

To your point #5:
Guns are not my hobby. In Los Angeles where I used to live there was a constant symphony of sirens and police helicopters, punctuated by gunfire despite only celebrities being issued carry permits. The criminals couldn't have cared less that their guns were illegal -- if they already had in mind to shoot people in order to rob them they were not going to care that having the gun was illegal. It wasn't always like that, but that's what it degraded to under the governing policies now widespread in our country. I am an old lady, can't run and the extent to which I could fight unarmed would be useless against pretty much any assailant. So in my late 60's I decided I needed to learn how to shoot and acquire a gun so I would be able to defend my life, at least in my house.

And a couple of points from history:
1. Gun registration always ends up with gun confiscation. In the Weimar Republic street violence was increasing so they thought registering guns would solve it, to in their minds ensure that only responsible citizens would have guns. After the Nazis attained power (remember, Hitler was ELECTED) they said only military and police need guns, and since they had the registry they were easily able to confiscate all the guns in the possession of civilians. Consider what Kristallnacht would have looked like if the Jewish business owners had been able to defend themselves like the Koreans did in the Los Angeles riots.
2. The then American colonies tried to persuade England to give them the rights to which according to the laws of England they were entitled. Didn't work. Yes, there was the famous Boston Tea Party. But guess what the actual precipitating event of the Revolutionary War was? When the Brits came to take away the colonists' weapons. That set off the "shot heard round the world", and so far thank G-d we're still here. In other words, our country was born by the use of weapons against a tyrannical government.

Finally:
Does our government really want to abolish gun violence? How about starting by enforcing the laws already on the books? They hardly ever enhance the sentence of a convicted criminal for having used a gun in the crime or for being a felon in possession, even though that's the law. The son of our current president lied about his drug use on the Form 4473, the form required to be completed for a background check... by his own admission in his autobiography he used drugs extensively. Lying on Form 4473 is a FELONY punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. He's not being prosecuted and his father dismissed the facts by saying a person shouldn't be prosecuted for filling out a form incorrectly. IOW laws for thee but not for me.
 
Remington1911 said:
The US is not any other country, we are different and special, take the things away that make us special and the next thing you know is we will be like Oz and sending people to camps because they did not get their shot.

I have no real issue with raising the age to 21, we should however raise the voting age to 21 as well. You are telling me that 18yr olds are too stupid to make good decisions, you vote is the most powerful weapon you have.
Click to expand...
Let's propose we'll agree to raising the age for buying a firearm to 21 on the condition that the voting age is also raised to 21, for exactly the reason you state.
 
One of the reasons the founders included the 2A is the ability for us to protect ourselves against the government should that need arise. Attached is a link to an article from the Daily Mail detailing the number of people killed by various governments in the 20th century alone. The number of people murdered are staggering, as are the number of regimes that took part in this. The 2A gives us the right to protect ourselves, whether it's from criminals or a government gone bad (I'm not saying we're at that point). Whether it's states/cities with ultra restrictive gun laws which lead the country in violent crimes or the assault weapon ban of 1994 which did not deter crime, we have all the evidence we need to know that the anti's wish list does not help save lives. Their sole goal is to do away with private gun ownership, and if they claim anything other than that they're lying.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mo...itler-Stalin-The-murderous-regimes-world.html
 
Elkins45 said:
Any existing ones were already supposed to have been destroyed when Trump’s ban took effect.
Click to expand...
I doubt if many people actually destroyed or surrendered their bump stocks.They simply went underground. If the Democrats are actually stupid enough to pass this bump stock bill, it will override Trump's ban and grandfather all the supposedly nonexistent bump stocks. Talk about reanimating the dead! People will be "papering" thousands of bump stocks as machine guns. And this would be the first chink in ending the Hughes Amendment.
 
Last I checked, the U.S. has about 1.15% of the world's mass shootings.

Edit: actually, the U.S. had about 1.15% of the world's mass shooters and 2.2% of the world's mass shootings.

If we paid more attention to the mental health side of the problem then we could probably further reduce this number.
If we only blame the weapons then the crazies will only start using other weapons - with greater impunity, as their victims will be unable to resist effectively.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s interesting that they want to make the mfg of a product responsible for misuse.

I wonder how the automobile lobby feels about that, automobiles have been killing people for more than 120 years. Kind of started out slow but they were responsible for more than 42,000 deaths just last year. Not only do you not go through a back ground check. There are lots of folks driving around you that don’t have insurance or even a license.

Shows that we should ban automobiles. We could certainly save more children if we banned them vs all firearms, not just ones that are semiauto and hold more than 10 rounds..
 
Last edited:
Insignificant bill said:
What needs to change is focusing on the people that do these terrible crimes.
Click to expand...
The mentally ill will always be among us. Likewise, guns (particularly the AR-15) will always be among us. What has to change is the linkage between the two. The mentally ill (diagnosed and undiagnosed) must not have access to guns. We, as gun owners, need to find creative ways to accomplish this -- in our own long-term interest. So far, we have failed miserably. We're stuck in the pro-gun/antigun rut.
 
Carl N. Brown said:
If the "militia" is the National Guard, why do several states, including New York and Tennessee, have organized militias separate from the National Guard?
Click to expand...
The "militia," in the 2nd Amendment sense, goes beyond both the National Guard and the state guards. It's basically the whole body of the people (according to the writings of the Founders). Everybody, as a member of this inchoate (notional) militia, has an individual right to the same weapons used by the standing army.

Caveat: Any group that attempts to organize a portion of this inchoate, unorganized militia into a self-designated "militia" outside of state sanction, loses 2nd Amendment protection. See Presser v. Illinois (1886).
 
The mentally ill will always be among us. Likewise, guns (particularly the AR-15) will always be among us.
...The mentally ill (diagnosed and undiagnosed) must not have access to guns
Click to expand...
I'm open certainly to ideas... that the Left can't immediately
drive a truck through...to effectively disarm The People.


.
 
old lady new shooter said:
Let's propose we'll agree to raising the age for buying a firearm to 21 on the condition that the voting age is also raised to 21, for exactly the reason you state.
Click to expand...
The age of adulthood doesn't have to be the same for all things. For one thing, it depends on the potential harm that could result. The harm from smoking is generally limited to the individual, the harm from drinking involves a larger circle (in the sense that drunk drivers may cause accidents), but the potential harm from misuse of guns could be much worse. The age of 21 seems reasonable for all these things. Even 25 for guns would not be out of line.

Voting age is a special case. Not only is age 18 enshrined in the Constitution (26th Amendment), but encouraging young people to vote is a civic good -- hopefully, it helps to form a lifetime habit. As it is, their rate of voting participation is not high. And the harm from any one individual vote is minimal.
 
AlexanderA said:
The mentally ill will always be among us. Likewise, guns (particularly the AR-15) will always be among us. What has to change is the linkage between the two. The mentally ill (diagnosed and undiagnosed) must not have access to guns. We, as gun owners, need to find creative ways to accomplish this -- in our own long-term interest. So far, we have failed miserably. We're stuck in the pro-gun/antigun rut.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is defining "mentally ill". Given current trends, anybody favoring limited government or believing there are only two genders will soon be labeled "mentally ill".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
What Are We Going to Do About It?
Replies
5
Views
532
Robert Hairless
R
hso
This is what "statement politics" looks like
Replies
8
Views
701
tmd16556
T
S
  • Locked
Gun-Grabber Regime Preparedness List
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
jlbraun
J
J
  • Locked
Here we go again (Bush reverses stand on AW ban)
Replies
2
Views
657
Tamara
T
R
  • Locked
New Orleans paper: magazine prices plummet!
Replies
11
Views
1K
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
Back
Top