Will We Sit at the Table?

[zorro45]

If you go to www.jpfo.org you will find many, many talking points and references that refute most of the antis arguments.

It is very hard to regulate video games without infringing the First Amendment.
Responsible parents however are exempt from that and may have stricter rules under their roof if they do not wish their kids exposed to this stuff.

The recurring theme of the JPFO material is that the existing guns laws are not being enforced, and a high percentage of crimes are committed by parolees, who have been let out of our prisons because of overcrowding, making the job of the police more difficult and putting a lot of unsavory individuals with very poor legitimate job skills/prospects out on the street.

The mental health system is also broken unless you have a good job, private insurance, and enough insight to recognize that you need to take your meds and stay in therapy.

 

[Deanimator]

The panic is well deserved. Liberal Democrats are already calling for gun control.

When did they ever STOP???

And by the way, anti-gun Republicans are doing the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Bill Kristol recently called for both an AWB AND a ban on concealed carry?

The press has allready jumped on the gun control bandwagon.

"Jumped ON"??? When have they ever been OFF???

Not in my lifetime and I'm almost 55.

And some of us want to bargain our rights away so that we can compromise and be nice.

Nothing new here either. Google "AHSA". I remember the "National Firearms Association" before them. During the '90s, NPR ran a week long series on guns. Their "PRO-gun" spokesman one day was a shotgun shooter who said not only that he'd NEVER own a handgun, but that if really pushed, he'd be WILLING to give up his shotguns.

The United States had Jeannette Rankin during WWII. We still won the war. Bill Kristol can't give up our guns FOR us... unless we LET him.

 

[Fremmer]

in the last 48 hours, the calls for more gun control have increased exponentially. without even knowing the facts of this whole mess. and this time its obvious that the gun control fans are waging an organized campaign to impose new gun control legislation, right now, and we're supposed to be sensible and nice and just accept that we can't buy ar 15s or mags holding more than 10 rounds because we need to come to the table and bend over.

Some of us aren't willing to do that. NO NEW GUN CONTROL. No compromises. NO.

 

[krupparms]

No Gun Free Zones, Armed Teachers, &armed security St schools. Writing our Rep.s & POTIUS. All these things will not stop the government if they decided to take them! Only one group can do it! We need to stop putting down the groups that are leagle &lawful! They are our last line Dogs defense! That's what the 2amd. us really about after all!

 

[bowserb]

---Slightly off topic, but important note to vocal gun owners---

We are going to see politicians speaking for gun control...everywhere. Please, when you have the opportunity to reply, especially in writing, make a special effort to use spelling and grammar checkers, as included in MS Word, to enhance your credibility. I have seen in this thread so many incorrect word forms--mostly from writing in haste or on a phone, I presume, that I worry that letters to congressmen, editors, on social media, and responding to news stories, can hurt us. Remember, the left tends to be populated with educators and intellectuals. They will use anything they can against us, including, "The gun culture is a bunch of ignorant rednecks and hacks. These are people who cannot even spell or understand the language they attempt to use in their feeble attempts to justify their positions."

You can simply type your missives in Word, use the spell check and grammar check, then copy and paste your corrected text into the web form you need to use.

No offense intended. Please save your flames for liberals.

 

[2ifbyC]

When tragedy besets a nation, it is only natural that emotions run high. People will vent and logic will be cast aside as one grapples to deal with the horror. Fools rush in and it’s best to stay out of the fray until the visceral impact has subsided. There is a Time for Everything.

Freedom comes to us in many forms. We may not like some of its manifestations, but it is a cost that we must be willing to endure. We share these freedoms with others who may not deserve them. However, we have no right to take away freedom from others with whom we disagree.

Before we can “sit at the table”, we must understand the problem we are trying to solve. Is the gun the problem or the person using it? Is the car the problem or the drunk driver using it? Is religion the problem or the people who have faith? Is freedom the problem?

You cannot legislate for the removal of heinous crimes. However, we must be willing to listen; polarization breeds contempt. All out frontal assaults armed with facts and figures will do little to promote your view. Yet it is ironic that the opposition at the table has nothing to offer; only the desire to take away your freedom. Ask them what freedoms they are willing to give up in exchange.

 

[krupparms]

Sorry post went out before I could edit it! I still believe most will understand it! It is not what I wanted to post, but it will do.

 

[Deanimator]

Ask them what freedoms they are willing to give up in exchange.

Start with this:

Legislation forbidding more than ONE print story or broadcast segment per media entity, covering any particular multiple murder, with said coverage forbidden to exceed one hundred words, or three broadcast minutes. The same would apply to any and all related web content.

They say that Europeans aren't "obsessed" with the right to own guns. Similarly, I've heard Canadians say that THEY don't have a "fetish about free speech".

 

[Warp]

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.

Why?

Please explain how and why either of those things has anything to do with this incident

 

[bigfatdave]

What is this silliness, trader Mike?

The guns didn't do anything on their own, and that scary black rifle was left in the car.

Are you from ASHA?

Mods, can we preserve this as an example of anti-gun trolling?

 

[JShirley]

So far in this thread- amongst other things- I have heard suggestions for "reasonable restrictions" that would not have prevented this tragedy, and a declaration that no citizen needs a handgun that is no more effective than handguns available a hundred years ago. These came from folks supposedly on our side- what can we expect outright anti-gunners to want?

I do believe in compromise. So I'd settle for only repealing half of the "gun control" legislation enacted in the last 80 years, for a start. Hell, how's this: we will agree to retain a $200 registration fee on new purchases of fully automatic weapons- which will once again be legal by individuals- in exchange for removing any fee or registration for sound suppressors. Now, that's compromise.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Agree. Nicely summed up.And we have to continue to roll back the existing gun controls of 1911,1934,1968,1986, ad nauseum.
We don't need any gun control.

That's all fine and dandy and will accomplish nothing as part of what's coming.

This shooting is DIFFERENT as bad all the others were even a blind man can see this one will be a catalyst for something. What that something is has yet to be determined.

The question we as gun owners need to ask is what are WE doing as it relates to preventing a repeat of last week. Because I assure you the other side is going to do SOMETHING They feel does just that. Weither it works or not is absolutely and utterly irrelevant this will be settled in a political arena that's aligned with more left leaning values as laid out in the last election.

If we go on pure defense mode and send pastor Wayne to Washington with the same old tired talking points left over from 93 we will absolutely get run over by popular opinion.

WE HAVE TO PRESENT OUR OWN SOLUTIONS! What those are I know not but whatever they may be we need to figure them out FAST

Because when everyone else is saying we need to do something the one group saying "everythings fine" will not have a place at the debate.





posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

 

[we are not amused]

Even more panic going on today, than there was earlier, probably has something to do with the Sunday morning news shows.

Well what do you expect? Do you expect the Left-wing Liberal talk show host to defend gun owners?

Do you expect the "chattering class" of regular invited round table guest to do anything but wring their hands and say something has to be done?

As I pointed out in an earlier post, we don't have enough information yet for an informed discussion. You cannot rely upon news reports of what happened to be truthful or accurate.

Early on the shooters mother was reported to work at the school, that turns out to be false, that he had been admitted to the school, also false. That he had left the AR-15 in the car, so on and so forth.

Now that I have warned against the dangers of speculating with incomplete information, I am going to do so.

It has been reported that the shooter had Asperger syndrome. This is not a mental illness in the sense that bi-polar disorder, or schizophrenia is. Asperger syndrome is not generally linked with violent behavior, quite the opposite, as they are often the victims, but his actions just don't conform to the disorder. Something else seems to be involved.

If I was looking at any one cause for the tragedy, I would look at the drugs that often used to control children today. Drugs that affect serotonin levels are linked to bizarre behavior including violent episodes.

While hard to find solid evidence, most school shootings seem to involve children who are on prescription mood altering drugs, usually Ritalin. While we may never know, I would really like a rigorous study done.

If the shooter turns out to have been on prescription medication, this needs to be part of the debate.

 

[Deanimator]

WE HAVE TO PRESENT OUR OWN SOLUTIONS! What those are I know not but whatever they may be we need to figure them out FAST

Really?

What "solutions" would those be... I mean that would actually SOLVE the perceived problem?

How about if we forbid the media to spend more than three minutes or one hundred print words on any specific mass murder? After all, that's what's driving these killings. Malignant narcissists, willing to kill to get attention are being REWARDED... with ATTENTION... for KILLING. It's about as surprising as bathing in fish guts and blood, diving off the Great Barrier Reef, then getting bitten by a shark.

We could propose that Britney Spears be thrown into Mauna Loa, and that would be no LESS efficacious than anything the other side is demanding.

So, what is YOUR "solution" that doesn't violate the First OR Second Amendments?

 

[Deanimator]

If I was looking at any one cause for the tragedy, I would look at the drugs that often used to control children today. Drugs that affect serotonin levels are linked to bizarre behavior including violent episodes.

If you want to look at ONE cause, look at the media elevating the murderers to superstar status. That is the BIGGEST factor.

 

[Rocketmedic]

Refusal to adapt equals death.

I'm horrified by some of the responses here. Your solution, in 21st-Century America, to a mass shooting at an elementary school, is seriously to make fully-automatic firearms more available?

The medical examiner didn't lie. He found that most of those kids died from multiple rifle-caliber gunshot wounds. A rifle that fired those rounds was found at the scene, in the shooter's vehicle. He also had two pistols that were more than capable of firing a lot of ammunition pretty quickly. It's purely academic as to which ones/how he used them, because he was already violating laws and the effect was the same. No, gun control (short of mandatory biometric locks on all firearms) would not have prevented this tragedy, and he may have bombed the place or stabbed a few folks or plowed over a crowd with a dump truck. But he didn't, because he was able to shoot a lot of people with easily-accessed firearms.

If he had used a truck bomb, do you think that the rental agency would be holding its line? No! They would be frantically engaging in damage control, apologizing, and making it far more difficult to rent a truck.

Seriously, people, you are exactly why gun rights are not taken seriously by either side. People advocating repeals of the '68 GCA and the '86 NFA may know what we want, but how many Americans are going to look at that and say "you know what? Let's place more SAWs in the hands of those mentally-ill school shooters" instead of recognizing a desire to burn hundreds of dollars in ammo in a minute or two.

 

[we are not amused]

Freedom comes to us in many forms. We may not like some of its manifestations, but it is a cost that we must be willing to endure. We share these freedoms with others who may not deserve them. However, we have no right to take away freedom from others with whom we disagree.

Well said!

You cannot legislate for the removal of heinous crimes. However, we must be willing to listen; polarization breeds contempt. All out frontal assaults armed with facts and figures will do little to promote your view. Yet it is ironic that the opposition at the table has nothing to offer; only the desire to take away your freedom. Ask them what freedoms they are willing to give up in exchange.

I don't disagree with you, but isn't it a hell of situation when "All out frontal assaults armed with facts and figures will do little to promote your view".

 

[R.W.Dale]

Really?

What "solutions" would those be... I mean that would actually SOLVE the perceived problem?

How about if we forbid the media to spend more than three minutes or one hundred print words on any specific mass murder? After all, that's what's driving these killings. Malignant narcissists, willing to kill to get attention are being REWARDED... with ATTENTION... for KILLING. It's about as surprising as bathing in fish guts and blood, diving off the Great Barrier Reef, then getting bitten by a shark.

We could propose that Britney Spears be thrown into Mauna Loa, and that would be no LESS efficacious than anything the other side is demanding.

So, what is YOUR "solution" that doesn't violate the First OR Second Amendments?

This is what I mean.

How seriously do you expect to be taken rambling about censorship and Brittany spears in a gun control debate centered around the mass murder of kindergarten kids?

Meanwhile THEY will take whatever steps they FEEL are appropriate. AGAIN these steps actually working or not will be utterly irrelevant to the debate. Wich short of all out confiscation will just be feel good policy



posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

 

[Rocketmedic]

Exactly. Rambling about "tyannical government" or "gun control doesn't work" or trotting out the 1993 talking points isn't going to do a damned thing to change minds about a school shooting, performed with legally-owned weapons, in 2012.

It's going to get you alienated, ignored, and our rights trampled by Bloomberg and his ilk.

 

[Warp]

Refusal to adapt equals death.

I'm horrified by some of the responses here. Your solution, in 21st-Century America, to a mass shooting at an elementary school, is seriously to make fully-automatic firearms more available?

The medical examiner didn't lie. He found that most of those kids died from multiple rifle-caliber gunshot wounds. A rifle that fired those rounds was found at the scene, in the shooter's vehicle. He also had two pistols that were more than capable of firing a lot of ammunition pretty quickly. It's purely academic as to which ones/how he used them, because he was already violating laws and the effect was the same. No, gun control (short of mandatory biometric locks on all firearms) would not have prevented this tragedy, and he may have bombed the place or stabbed a few folks or plowed over a crowd with a dump truck. But he didn't, because he was able to shoot a lot of people with easily-accessed firearms.

If he had used a truck bomb, do you think that the rental agency would be holding its line? No! They would be frantically engaging in damage control, apologizing, and making it far more difficult to rent a truck.

Seriously, people, you are exactly why gun rights are not taken seriously by either side. People advocating repeals of the '68 GCA and the '86 NFA may know what we want, but how many Americans are going to look at that and say "you know what? Let's place more SAWs in the hands of those mentally-ill school shooters" instead of recognizing a desire to burn hundreds of dollars in ammo in a minute or two.

Not very many people, because not very many people are stupid enough to think that there are SAWs in their hands to begin with.

 

[Sky]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/50215770#50215770

D. Feinstein's proposed bill and the round table discussion

 

[Rocketmedic]

That would be because SAWs are in very limited, very expensive supply now.

Are you seriously arguing that Adam Landsa or another shooter with no criminal record could not have gotten a fully-automatic rifle if the 1986 NFA was repealed?

 

[we are not amused]

Refusal to adapt equals death.

I'm horrified by some of the responses here. Your solution, in 21st-Century America, to a mass shooting at an elementary school, is seriously to make fully-automatic firearms more available?

Who advocated making fully automatic firearms more available? Not that I am opposed, just wondering?

The medical examiner didn't lie. He found that most of those kids died from multiple rifle-caliber gunshot wounds. A rifle that fired those rounds was found at the scene, in the shooter's vehicle.

If the rifle, capable of firing those rounds was found in the vehicle, how did he use it to shoot the children inside the building?

He also had two pistols that were more than capable of firing a lot of ammunition pretty quickly. It's purely academic as to which ones/how he used them, because he was already violating laws and the effect was the same. No, gun control (short of mandatory biometric locks on all firearms) would not have prevented this tragedy, and he may have bombed the place or stabbed a few folks or plowed over a crowd with a dump truck. But he didn't, because he was able to shoot a lot of people with easily-accessed firearms.

If he had used a truck bomb, do you think that the rental agency would be holding its line? No! They would be frantically engaging in damage control, apologizing, and making it far more difficult to rent a truck.

I am unaware that Ryder truck or U-Haul made it harder to rent their trucks after the Oklahoma tragedy. All I had to do is present a driver's license and creadit card, after the bombing, which was what I did to rent a truck before the bombing.

Seriously, people, you are exactly why gun rights are not taken seriously by either side. People advocating repeals of the '68 GCA and the '86 NFA may know what we want, but how many Americans are going to look at that and say "you know what? Let's place more SAWs in the hands of those mentally-ill school shooters" instead of recognizing a desire to burn hundreds of dollars in ammo in a minute or two.

I really urge you to get informed about what you are talking about. No one is advocating placing Squad Automatic Weapons into the hands of mentally ill people.

You sound more like Sarah Brady or Chuck Schumer than someone who supports RKBA.

If you want to be taken seriously, please get your facts right, and make some effort to learn the terminology of what you speak.

 

[Warp]

That would be because SAWs are in very limited, very expensive supply now.

Are you seriously arguing that the shooter or another shooter with no criminal record could not have gotten a fully-automatic rifle if the 1986 NFA was repealed?

Please stop using his name. Or any shooter's name. That's what they want.

I'm not sure how or why you think I am saying that, as I am not nor did I imply that.

But I think that is a bit too far off the topic of this thread anyway

 

[we are not amused]

If you want to look at ONE cause, look at the media elevating the murderers to superstar status. That is the BIGGEST factor.

You have a point.