Hb 4774 mi

[pezo]

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.

 

[pezo]

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]

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]

'Shall not be infringed'

 

[barnbwt]

"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? )
"There must, however, be a beginning of a dialogue relating to gun registration and sealing exiting 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 ) 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]

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]

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]

"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..."
What if it actually does only get one gun off the street, like, literally?

TCB

 

[Sam1911]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. . . .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. 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]

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]

Glad she seems to have gotten the issue resolved. But it is pretty the exact premise of the movie Brazil...

TCB

 

[grampster]

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]

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]

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]

http://bearingarms.com/long-slow-de...urce=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]

"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]

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]

Pezo...

...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]

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]

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]

"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? 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