4kdave
Member
As far as protecting children in schools....there are a lot of Veterans that can't find work so put them to work in front of our schools
We are going to have to give up something
- Thread starter Sgt.Murtaugh
- Start date
- Status
My bad, it was a figure of speech but your harmless daydreams could lead to such a day.
Want to get my attention? Start fooling around with the Bill of Rights and you'll get it real fast.
History lesson for ya:
The husband and son of NY rep Carolyn McCarthy (D) were shot on a NY subway and next thing ya know she wants a ban nationwide on SHOULDER-THINGS-THAT-GO-UP.
Should we have "reached out" to her and "hoped for the best" back then?
I'm afraid you and I will just have to disagree.
t
45_auto
Member
sgt. murtaugh said:
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The same argument was used on the Jews just prior to WW2 (except it was K98s then instead of AR15s). Have your friends go visit the ovens at some of the extermination camps and ask a few of the 11 million ghosts how they feel about giving control of their and their loved ones lives to the government.
As others have stated, the 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting.
Last edited:
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
What is there to give up? We were given up in 1934, 1968, 1994. All those laws were supposed to fix everything and at the same time chiseled our rights away.
horsemen61
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,760
no we give up nothing this is a line drawn in the sand we can't cross it 
This is how I feel the Constitution says "life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness"my happiness is guns so no I do not want to give them up.
This is how I feel the Constitution says "life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness"my happiness is guns so no I do not want to give them up.Sgt.Murtaugh
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 245
Fair enough. Just know that we are on the same side. If reaching out to representatives and making NRA contributions and signing petitions isn't sufficient, what is it that you suggest doing to be more vocal and pro-active?
when you say messing w/ Bill of Rights will "get your attention real fast," what does that even mean? I'm trying to see your perspective but you're not giving me much by way of specifics. We clearly want the same things.
thepumpfaction
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2012
- Messages
- 35
I'm not gonna lie, I would have no problem with getting a mental examination and closing the "Gun show loophole" if it means that I can keep my gun. I could pass the exam and/or buy a firearm at a gun show with a background check with no problem. The people who can't pass a Bcheck and don't have the mental ability to safely own a gun should not have one. /$0.02
I don't mind this stuff if we can keep our existing firearms without issues.
Changing the second amendment to:
"The right to bear arms... except for AR-15s, because three people aren't smart enough to use them" is like
"the freedom of religion... Except for being Muslim, because a few out of the millions alive tried to blow something up."
It makes no sense.
My friend made a good joke.
There should be a drinking game. Watch the news for an hour. Every time they incorrectly refer to an AR-15 as an "assault rifle", you take a shot of vodka. But instead of having fun, you get alcohol poisoning after 15 minutes. lol
I don't mind this stuff if we can keep our existing firearms without issues.
Changing the second amendment to:
"The right to bear arms... except for AR-15s, because three people aren't smart enough to use them" is like
"the freedom of religion... Except for being Muslim, because a few out of the millions alive tried to blow something up."
It makes no sense.
My friend made a good joke.
There should be a drinking game. Watch the news for an hour. Every time they incorrectly refer to an AR-15 as an "assault rifle", you take a shot of vodka. But instead of having fun, you get alcohol poisoning after 15 minutes. lol
gc70
Member
Sgt.Murtaugh said:
Why? Which of the five 'compromises' you listed would have prevented any of the more recent mass shootings?
The common denominator in all of the recent mass shootings seems to be mental illness. I think laws concerning privacy and confidentiality of mental health information are too strict and delay disclosure too long. Rather than waiting until a person is a clear and imminent danger, the focus should be on identifying people with mental disorders and acting earlier to get them help or restrain them.
JFrame
Member
Sgt.Murtaugh
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 245
None of those would prevent the shootings and don't act like that has mattered in the past. Nothing that has ever passed has ever made a real dent in gun violence. Still, that didn't stop them from passing or being proposed again.
I agree about the mental health thing. Isn't it the republicans that wanted to cut mental health funding? I really don't know, I'm asking.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,421
No, are not.
This acquiescent mindset is precisely what is wrong with our society today- we refuse to hold anyone accountable for their acts and seek atonement from the instruments used by the actor. If you are willing to accede any one of your rights when you yourself have done nothing wrong, then there are those who will gladly relieve you of them and then hold you up as the being the cause of the fault they purport to correct.
We, the beneficiaries of the Bill of Rights, owe nothing to anyone and do not need to apologize or vacate any of our rights simply because someone else cannot behave within the bounds of our social framework. The individual who transgresses bears sole responsibility for his/her actions no matter what the elitist fools in DC say- If you are willing to surrender your rights in order to atone for the cowardly acts of another, that's up to you, but no one needs to be telling law-abiding Americans that we have to accept sanction for the actions of another.
HYBOOST
Member
I too am afraid we will have to give up something. Here in NY, we already gave up the right to own a mag that holds more than 10 rounds.(post 1994)
What I think might actually help is when buying your first gun, you must show proof that you have a "real" gun safe. Not a display case, or a trigger lock. But a real safe. Maybe the govt can offer tax exempt safe purchase or a discounted price to gun owners?
I hate more regulation, but when owning a gun, you must protect it from the hands of undesirables who won't treat your weapon with respect. So upon request, a firearms official can stop by a gun owners home unannounced and request a firearms safety inspection, meaning they inspect your firearms to make sure they are secured properly. If not, you get a warning or a fine, and the second time, you run the risk of losing the right to own a firearm.
I know that would suck, but so would a call from school saying your child has been shot, & the main way these scumbags are getting our weapons, is breaking in when we are not home, and stealing them. We must do something, & this is better than denying responsible, law abiding citizens from owning guns of our choice...
What I think might actually help is when buying your first gun, you must show proof that you have a "real" gun safe. Not a display case, or a trigger lock. But a real safe. Maybe the govt can offer tax exempt safe purchase or a discounted price to gun owners?
I hate more regulation, but when owning a gun, you must protect it from the hands of undesirables who won't treat your weapon with respect. So upon request, a firearms official can stop by a gun owners home unannounced and request a firearms safety inspection, meaning they inspect your firearms to make sure they are secured properly. If not, you get a warning or a fine, and the second time, you run the risk of losing the right to own a firearm.
I know that would suck, but so would a call from school saying your child has been shot, & the main way these scumbags are getting our weapons, is breaking in when we are not home, and stealing them. We must do something, & this is better than denying responsible, law abiding citizens from owning guns of our choice...
Practically I think if there is more political pressure than can be countered for something like magazine capacity limitations than our best bet may actually be going for a compromise in the sense of pressuring some other "common sense" measures that are relevant. I'd suggest pushing for allowing teachers and (maybe other staff and/or citizens in general) to carry concealed in school (and maybe other current gun free zones). Tax credits for gunsafes could be another.
Playing a game where we lose something whenever some psycopath does something but we gain nothing when someone with a gun stops a psycopath or where a teacher could have stoped someone killing kids with a knife if they'd had a gun just means we slowly lose everything.
Also something we need to be concerned about is allowing for cost barriers and other such limitations to be put into place as they may over time reduce gun ownership. The sad fact is that people tend to not give a fig about rights they aren't personally taking advantage of. Our strength is in our numbers.
Do you really believe that by consenting to a mental examination you will get to keep your guns? Who is going to judge your mental competency? Do you trust the Government to do this? I don't.
If there was some data pointing to gun show loopholes causing crime, it would be all over the news. It isn't. Ask yourself why?
Giving a millimeter is still giving. How about a review of all gun laws passed to date to judge their effectiveness? Then get rid of the ones that have done nothing.
LNK
Wow Hyboost, you are not only advocating restriction on 2A, but also 1) registration and 2) suspension of 4A! That would be worse than a AWB.
1 post...I'm thinking ASHA troll.
FYI, no safe is thief-proof, and most safes that are out there right now don't do much to prevent theft, but prevent unauthorized access during the home invasion.
Wapato, that is the first time I've seen "compromise" mentioned where the compromise is ACTUALLY a compromise. The problem is the antis just say "well if you arm the teachers, that puts our kids in more danger because the teacher can go ballistic!"
1 post...I'm thinking ASHA troll.
FYI, no safe is thief-proof, and most safes that are out there right now don't do much to prevent theft, but prevent unauthorized access during the home invasion.
Wapato, that is the first time I've seen "compromise" mentioned where the compromise is ACTUALLY a compromise. The problem is the antis just say "well if you arm the teachers, that puts our kids in more danger because the teacher can go ballistic!"
Welcome to The High Road, thepumpfaction!
1) Psych exam to purchase a gun: Assuming that this is meant to be "psych exam to purchase a gun, even in the absence of prior convictions or other disqualifying factors," how long do you think it will be before some legislators conclude that The Desire to Own a Gun = Violent Tendencies = Mental Illness? Ergo, wanting to own a gun means that you're not fit to have one.
2) There is no Gun Show Loophole.
I do. I have some very serious reservations about both of those. Here's why:thepumpfaction said:
1) Psych exam to purchase a gun: Assuming that this is meant to be "psych exam to purchase a gun, even in the absence of prior convictions or other disqualifying factors," how long do you think it will be before some legislators conclude that The Desire to Own a Gun = Violent Tendencies = Mental Illness? Ergo, wanting to own a gun means that you're not fit to have one.
2) There is no Gun Show Loophole.
Oh, you'll pass, no sweat, like money in the bank, bet on it, no problem, now if you would please go with these nice gentlemen...oh, are you allergic to any medications?
Dain Bramage
Member
In Washington state, I can't carry in a school zone, except for a poorly worded exception for picking up or dropping off students. I have to be disarmed if I'm watch my daughter's basketball game.
Since I've already been vetted as a CCW license holder, I am part of a very law abiding subset of the populace. Why not let me carry on school grounds? Anybody willing to do harm is going to ignore the law anyway.
If I break any of the requirements of the CCW, pull it! I can be trusted with guns off school grounds but not on them?
If they want a change, let's get rid of the victim disarmament zones.
Since I've already been vetted as a CCW license holder, I am part of a very law abiding subset of the populace. Why not let me carry on school grounds? Anybody willing to do harm is going to ignore the law anyway.
If I break any of the requirements of the CCW, pull it! I can be trusted with guns off school grounds but not on them?
If they want a change, let's get rid of the victim disarmament zones.
morcey2
Member
No kidding. What happens if the happen to notice anything else during the "firearms" inspection? Warrants are required (at least at my house) for a reason. They see a syringe sitting on the counter and I get arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia. It's not like my wife is an insulin dependent diabetic, but it can take some time to prove that. That's not a theoretical situation, I wasn't the subject though. I like fishing as much as the next guy, but there's no reason to give an LEO a simple excuse for a fishing expedition.
Matt
From the news this morning here in Colorado it looks like the legislature is going to pursue the "mental illness" angle to controlling access to firearms, and I think this is the most likely path for Federal legislation, too. It seems a lot more acceptable to most people I've talked to, and it would be easier to get passed since it's not the same "hot button" topic that other gun control measures are. The only problem I see with this is that in many cases the rulings of the mental health experts seem to be a little arbitrary and vague.
I don't think we'll "give up" anything, but I do think that we'll have something rammed down our throats if the antis get organized fast enough and get something pushed through while emotions are still high. Let's face it, we've had a lot of constitutionally protected rights eroded or completely ignored for decades now.
I don't think we'll "give up" anything, but I do think that we'll have something rammed down our throats if the antis get organized fast enough and get something pushed through while emotions are still high. Let's face it, we've had a lot of constitutionally protected rights eroded or completely ignored for decades now.
gc70
Member
thepumpfaction said:
Why do you think you have to make concessions to "keep your gun?" Do you really think the 50-75 million gun owners in America will allow the government to take their guns?
You should give some thought to the concessions are willing to make.
You say you could live with requiring a background check for private transactions (the so-called "gun show loophole") - and presumably would not mind paying exorbitant transfer fees when FFLs have a captive market.
You say you could accept a mental examination because you could pass one. Since you do not know what such an examination would be like, are your really sure you could pass it? And, again, you presumably would not mind paying for such an examination every few years, or annually, or every time you buy a gun ... or maybe periodically just to keep your guns.
beatledog7
Member
SgtMurtaugh said:
Adding to BrooksD:
The Founders were educated men and knew human history; therefore, they had already seen arms technology advance through the ages and would certainly have presumed that such advancements would continue.
Did they foresee the Internet? Laptop computers? Cellular phones? If not, then we'd better start talking about what kind of speech the First Amendment is talking about.
Dain Bramage
Member
and this:
The current mental adjucation process, while not perfect, is a good balance between personal rights and society. A short involuntary commitment will not trigger loss of rights. The cops and loved ones can be wrong, due to depression, misunderstanding, whatever. Longer commitment and loss of rights requires due process; a hearing and a judge.
Any further insertion of the government in this process, and they can pound sand.
Now, it's the way we use these tools that are lacking. Many people who should be institutionalized are out on the street. Family is wary about using the system due to personal feelings, guilt, loyalty.
It would seem by overwhelming subjective evidence, even before the event, that the Connecticut shooter was not functioning in society and should have been committed. Reports from family friends even hint that the whole tragedy might have been started by the Mom's plans to commit the son. I don't want to pile on her, but her failure to control this process is what started this whole disaster. A lifetime of being a caring mom is swept away by not being strong enough to do the right thing, firmly, quickly, and safely.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,421
Yeah, they're popping up on the gun boards like a bad skin condition.
Fortunately, they are very easy to spot- their join date is typically within a day or two of the last incident, they have a single digit post count, and the posts that they do have are restricted to making contentious suggestions that are meant to convince legitimate board members that giving up our rights is inevitable and unavoidable. They often argue that we'd be better off just sacrificing our rights instead of standing up for ourselves.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked