Will We Sit at the Table?

[Rocketmedic]

For those of you who put your heads in the sand and claim that the 2nd Amendment will protect our rights, be aware that the Constitution is subject to changes in interpretation and implementation. A society that sees no place for carry, ownership or access to firearms is a very real possibility, and one that will not be avoided by a reactionary group that refuses any compromise.

 

[saturno_v]

There is nothing to discuss...nada....no amount of laws and regulations would have prevented this tragedy...this insane individual got access to his mother guns....


We can discuss about this:

- No more gun free zone without strict armed surveillance (like airports ansome Federal buildings for example)


I may willing to "concede" only two things....

1) Compulsory phone background check for private transactions FREE OF CHARGE.

2) Compulsory firearm safety training for CCW holders.

That's about it.

 

[1911 guy]

I heard the other day, our Fearless Leader was jabbering about firearm law "reform".

How about we sit down at this table and rather than dialogue, we make demands. We will demand that existing law be enforced. We will demand that the violent mentally ill be segregate from society. We will demand an immediate end to the constant news cycle that makes these whack-jobs want to get famous just before offing themselves.

 

[eazyrider]

Freedom is a scary place. Freedom means stupid people can be stupid and crazy people can be crazy. Freedom means people will get hurt and killed. When you try and ban death you end up with a controlled society. There are no answers here. If you say that mentally unstable people cannot own firearms then what you have said is that if a person seeks treatment he loses his civil rights. Well that certainly won't encourage people to seek treatment.

I have been reading comment sections for two days and I ask why stop at the 2nd amendment? Let's put some restriction on the first to stop graphic video games and violence in movies. Let's remove that part about unlawful search, afterall if cops can search people and homes they might uncover stuff before it happens. Let's have cops beat suspects so that they might get evidence of other crimes.

Point is, how far do people want to go. There will always be danger. How many times has the average person been shot at? I never have, nor has anybody I know. If you stay out of the bad part of town and don't get involved in criminal activities I say your chances of being shot are pretty slim.

As for myself I would rather have freedom than complete safety.

 

[Pilot]

Again, Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and that didn't stop this mass murderer. How will new, national, similar laws stop anything?

 

[PT92]

Well I live in Central Virginia...as our gun laws get less strict, I still think there are more anti-leaning people in my area than there are pr RKBA advocates.

The antis are certainly more vocal than the RKBA advocates.

I usually don't talk much about guns or hunting to my co-workers, but one of them who I mentioned hunting to (who is not an anti) said something to another co-worker, who immediately said to me "please don't kill us". She said it with a pretty straight face too...

Shame about Virginia--I never thought that Missouri would be Red State longer than Virginia....

Anymore 2+2=5...

-Happy Holidays

 

[blaisenguns]

I dont know about you guys, I am planning on drafting letters to my representatives, and the President this week. I want my voice heard, and I am going to encourage my freinds to do the same. If they dont want to sit down and write it I will blank out my name and let them send a copy of mine.

 

[Deanimator]

I would support raising the minimum age to purchase and own a magazine-fed semiauto-anything to 25 years, maybe even 30.

The above is an example of the sort of anti-rational "thinking" which pervades the gun control industry.

1. The idea that somebody would have the slightest difficulty committing a murder with a revolver is simply ludicrous. If you don't believe me, ask John Lennon. You know how to conduct a seance, don't you?
2. Given that most currently produced, useful self-defense handguns and rifles are semi-automatic, apparently you think that a twenty one year old doesn't have the right to defend his or her life. Do people's lives only matter when we hit thirty?

AGAIN, the answer is "NO".

Want a compromise? Here are a couple.

• We don't REQUIRE people to own a military style rifle or handgun.
• We repeal the NFA '34 in TWO years instead of one.

Like THOSE compromises?

 

[Ole Coot]

My personal opinion is simply all suggestions and reasoning is fine. I'm afraid the decision on firearms of any type has already been made and the news is not good for the shooting and hunting community. This will come soon.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm afraid the decision on firearms of any type has already been made

"Made" by WHO???

 

[Sky]

The table is on MEET THE PRESS this Sunday morning; ten pro-gun law makers were invited but none decided to attend so you end up with Bloomberg and the likes.

There is a bill coming that outlaws all assault weapons, (their definition) mags over 10 round capacity, the evil gun show loop hole?? The Bill which has been put together over this last year will be introduced to the Senate and then to the House. It was said the ban would not be retroactive and there would be 900 weapons not on the ban. This is what I heard them say others may have a different take.

 

[PT92]

The table is on MEET THE PRESS this Sunday morning; ten pro-gun law makers were invited but none decided to attend so you end up with Bloomberg and the likes.

There is a bill coming that outlaws all assault weapons, (their definition) mags over 10 round capacity, the evil gun show loop hole?? The Bill which has been put together over this last year will be introduced to the Senate and then to the House. It was said the ban would not be retroactive and there would be 900 weapons not on the ban. This is what I heard them say others may have a different take.

I will have to catch the re-run (or transcript).

I still think (perhaps naively?) that it doesn't have a very good chance to pass the House. That said, we must be extra-vigilant now more than ever to be sure by CONSTANTLY keeping in touch with respective Congressional reps and the like.

Additionally, I fear an executive order or SC ruling in the near term as well.

-Happy Holidays

 

[Sam1911]

Additionally, I fear an executive order or SC ruling in the near term as well.

Remember, executive orders cannot ban guns outright, and SC rulings have to come through cases which start far down the chain of litigation, so a case brought in some court today would be (MAYBE) heard by the SCOTUS in a DECADE. So, the SC can't decide to ban guns either.

When deciding what to worry about, it is always a good idea to study how the systems work so you know where to focus your efforts.

In this case, calling and writing your Congressmen -- constantly, repeatedly, politely and firmly -- is the way to go.

 

[Deanimator]

When deciding what to worry about, it is always a good idea to study how the systems work so you know where to focus your efforts.

This is irrefutable truth.

1. Executive order is highly unlikely.
2. Legislation is highly unlikely.
3. Supreme Court decision is highly unlikely.
4. Allowing the BATFE to run amok is VERY likely.

#4 is what Clinton did, in addition to legislation. On a GOOD day the BATFE is a lawless, corrupt organization. With Holder in charge, and having so far gotten away with outright criminality (Fast & Furious), there's no telling what he might try. Who knows what the bodycount will be in the end?

 

[brocktice]

Maybe he is surely and maybe he is not. The fact remains,Warped, that Montana is the only state that completely rules concealed bank carry out.

Other states where signs have the force of law, than it's an entirely separate issue. Capiche?

Yes, in my state no gun signs have force of law, but the law does not ban guns in banks. Also BoA is known to be anti-gun in general.

 

[larryh1108]

We may be over reacting as well. When Congresswoman Gifford was shot by an infirm shooter, that hit home to the decision makers. It made them all feel vulnerable. However, that did not cause any changes in the laws.

Shooting children is the worst case scenario we can ever see or imagine. Any further legislation would have to be protecting the children. I don't know any answers other than allowing teachers to carry concealed or having armed security at each school. That may not solve the problem but it may help. If someone wishes to cause mass murder there are many ways in which to do it and no single action will prevent it.

 

[JShirley]

We don't need so-called gun control, it's people who are the problem. The same day as this tragedy, a nut in China attacked over 20 kids with a knife.

The worst attack on a US school happened in Bath, Michigan, 85 years ago. Firearms are for amateurs- explosives are the real killers. You can't control people by legislating objects.

Fully automatic weapons were the "best behaved" group of firearms, with NO crimes having been committed with a registered fully automatic weapon in over 50 years. That didn't stop the 1986 law preventing individuals from owning new FA weapons from being passed. Since no crimes were being committed with these firearms, the goal was obviously not to protect the public. This is ultimately about some politicians' twisted view of morality. They have decided that they don't like anyone (except themselves or someone working fof them, obviously) owning certain objects. Crime and public safety don't actually have anything to do with it.

I also think that violence in video games should be regulated.

Kinda makes my point about morality, doesn't it? Let's forget about anything like personal responsibility- it's the video games!

Suggesting that the age to own firearms be raised isn't as crazy as attacking a bunch of kids, but it is damn stupid.

John

 

[PT92]

Remember, executive orders cannot ban guns outright, and SC rulings have to come through cases which start far down the chain of litigation, so a case brought in some court today would be (MAYBE) heard by the SCOTUS in a DECADE. So, the SC can't decide to ban guns either.

When deciding what to worry about, it is always a good idea to study how the systems work so you know where to focus your efforts.

In this case, calling and writing your Congressmen -- constantly, repeatedly, politely and firmly -- is the way to go.

Partially agreed.

No one suggested an OUTRIGHT gun ban would result by virtue of a possible executive order. However, the order would be devastating for 2A supporters irrespective of its content as it would be unprecedented and a virtual opening of the proverbial 'pandora's box' (a snowball rolling downhill if you will).

If a conservative or two SC Justice retires/expires today, tomorrow etc. (these people are undeniably elderly and of ill health), it is a CERTAINTY that BO appoints yet another Liberal Anti thereby irrefutably swaying the Court and triggering the reintroduction of Heller the next day IMO by fellow Chicago Brethren...

I agree wholeheartedly that almost incessant communication with respective Congressional Local/State/Federal Reps is the best approach going forward.

Bottom line is I do not think that being prepared on every level by carefully evaluating all eventualities/possibilities the Antis might try and strategize during a time they see as entirely conducive for action is to be perceived as either ill-founded or hysterical. On the contrary, in my view Complacency is our worst enemy and even more so than the Left (11-06-12 should have been a wake-up call).

--Happy Holidays

 

[Sam1911]

No one suggested an OUTRIGHT gun ban would result by virtue of a possible executive order. However, the order would be devastating for 2A supporters irrespective of its content as it would be unprecedented and a virtual opening of the proverbial 'pandora's box' (a snowball rolling downhill if you will).

"The order?" What order? The President isn't going to pass down an order that is completely unenforceable and illegal order like, "X,Y,Z guns are hereby banned." That would just make him look foolish as by the end of the day his own people would have to get up in front of the public and say, "Um...we can't do that."

So you're saying SOME anti-RKBA executive order would be devastating for 2A supporters? None of the previous (actually enforceable) E.O.s have proved to devastate us. What threatened E.O., that actually could be enacted and enforced, are you saying would be devastating?

If a conservative or two SC Justice retires/expires today, tomorrow etc. (these people are undeniably elderly and of ill health), it is a CERTAINTY that BO appoints yet another Liberal Anti thereby irrefutably swaying the Court and triggering the reintroduction of Heller the next day IMO by fellow Chicago Brethren...

That's silly. First off, look up the phrase "stare decisis." Then understand that the SCOTUS does NOT come to work in the morning and say, "Hey guys, let's pass a judgment on guns today!" It doesn't work like that. A case, fairly directly related to that specific issue, would have to be introduced in a lower court, would have to percolate through the queue of cases to be heard, be heard, pondered, and decided, and a judgment rendered, and then one party would have to decide to appeal it, and that appeal would have to be accepted by the next higher level of the courts, and the trial date come to pass and arguments made....and on, and on for YEARS. Eventually, probably after a decade, the SCOTUS would get the chance to decide if they even will entertain that case. And that decision would be heavily influenced by stare decisis.

So, anti-rights SCOTUS judges are a problem, but they aren't a guillotine hanging over us that will chop off our rights entirely the day after their wrinkled butts land on the hallowed bench.

 

[PT92]

"The order?" What order? The President isn't going to pass down an order that is completely unenforceable and illegal order like, "X,Y,Z guns are hereby banned." That would just make him look foolish as by the end of the day his own people would have to get up in front of the public and say, "Um...we can't do that."

So you're saying SOME anti-RKBA executive order would be devastating for 2A supporters? None of the previous (actually enforceable) E.O.s have proved to devastate us. What threatened E.O., that actually could be enacted and enforced, are you saying would be devastating?

That's silly. First off, look up the phrase "stare decisis." Then understand that the SCOTUS does NOT come to work in the morning and say, "Hey guys, let's pass a judgment on guns today!" It doesn't work like that. A case, fairly directly related to that specific issue, would have to be introduced in a lower court, would have to percolate through the queue of cases to be heard, be heard, pondered, and decided, and a judgment rendered, and then one party would have to decide to appeal it, and that appeal would have to be accepted by the next higher level of the courts, and the trial date come to pass and arguments made....and on, and on for YEARS. Eventually, probably after a decade, the SCOTUS would get the chance to decide if they even will entertain that case. And that decision would be heavily influenced by stare decisis.

So, anti-rights SCOTUS judges are a problem, but they aren't a guillotine hanging over us that will chop off our rights entirely the day after their wrinkled butts land on the hallowed bench.

Hey Sam,

If you want to have an adult-like responsible debate, I'm all for it. But don't think you can condescend to/at me by virtue of your THR Title--I won't stand for it.

I spelled out MY OPINION of which I am ENTITLED to and made no attempt to mock you. Disagree with me all day long but do so with respect.

To Reiterate, IMO you should be above such...

 

[Sam1911]

I meant no disrespect. I mean literally what I said. You do not seem to understand how the system works. I'm getting that impression by the things you say you are worried about.

If you understand the system and the concerns you've expressed are plausible, please explain how they would work.

You can't propose a bunch of things to be afraid of, have those concerns shown to be unfounded, and then claim to be offended by that.

I'm not condescending to you, I'm showing you where you appear to be mistaken. There is a difference, however subtle.

If you believe that I am incorrect, please do show me how so that I will understand the situation better. I wont believe your condescending to me -- I'll appreciate gaining clarity and better understanding.

Throughout this and several other threads I'm trying hard to stifle the voices of unfounded, non-comprehending panic which seem to threaten to swallow us all every time some tragic thing happens. There ARE things to be watchful for or even concerned about. Just not these.

 

[jmorris]

I don't understand, what will we be giving up now? CT made their own AWB that remains in effect to this day.

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - The end of the national ban on assault weapons will leave Connecticut as one of seven states where those guns will remain illegal.

"Our state must now commit to continued, even stronger enforcement of our assault weapons ban," Blumenthal said. "We can no longer count on our federal agencies to assist us."

Or your citizens once you disarm them and make them useless to mount any reasonable defense.



http://www.policeone.com/news/91835-Connecticut-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Remains-in-Effect/

 

[Fremmer]

The panic is well deserved. Liberal Democrats are already calling for gun control. In the 3rd debate, obama said he wanted more gun control. Obama now wants meaningful measures (which means prohibiting law abiding civilians from possessing ar 15s and any mag holding more than 10rounds). The press has allready jumped on the gun control bandwagon. And some of us want to bargain our rights away so that we can compromise and be nice.

There's good reason to panic and clearly state NO.

 

[Deanimator]

It sure is. In my time here,I've never seen such panicky responses as in the last 48 hours. Please take a deep breath and think. We are still living in a Republic.

I've seen this kind of thing before, but I'm older than some. I remember Columbine.

These responses can be explained thusly:

1. Pessimists, especially from profoundly anti states and cities. - New Yorkers and Chicagoans especially, assume both that everybody else's laws are as vile and repressive and that there is no effective opposition to them. I've got an ex-Canadian friend like this. He reflexively assumes that gun owners will just roll over, and that any proposed restrictions will sail through. He's usually wrong.
2. Anti-gun gun owners. - There are quite a few gun owners who are either guilty about owning guns or who are massively elitist, wanting restrictions on the "unwashed" in general or on specific minority groups. They hunt or trap shoot or whatever, and nobody else needs anything to do anything different. They're like the Jews who just KNEW that the Nazis didn't REALLY mean it and would NEVER come after THEM.
3. AHSA type fifth columnists. - Every time there's a big push for legislation by the gun control industry, they're guaranteed to show up to pose as "reasonable" gun owners, wanting "reasonable" (ie. maximum) gun control. They're like the neo-Nazis who periodically show up on gun forums to push off-topic racial agendas. Their intent is malicious. I've been seeing them since the old "National Firearms Association" in the '80s and '90s.

There's NOTHING to "compromise". There's only victory or surrender and defeat. The other side's goal is a TOTAL government monopoly on the means of armed force. You either accept that or not. Those are the choices, the ONLY choices.

 

[sawdeanz]

The most important thing is to make sure that "they" understand that before they start legislating stuff, they need to give us a seat at the table. When they see us at the table of a sudden they are going to lose credibility as it becomes apparent that all the laws they want were already in place in CT and failed to do anything to stop a massacre. There is precious more we can do but I am willing to talk about anything that will actually help, not what the antis think will help (which to them is banning guns with certain cosmetic features)