We are going to have to give up something

[481]

It's not "despite what they claim", many of them have admitted that it won't do anything, but it will make people _feel_ safer. :banghead:

They "felt" safer in CO and CT with the AWB when in fact they were not. "Feeling" safe is doesn't mean that you are safe.

Denial is not a viable survival plan.

 

[mboylan]

Executive Order will prevent us from having a voice. I could see Obama doing it. He's already done it.

You don't understand our system of government if you believe that. Obama could require more extensive background checks and feeds from more databases with an EO.

However, EOs are not laws. They are policy decisions regarding enforcement of existing laws.

 

[Skribs]

So, because of one person, we should suspend our rights to look politically correct?

What I suggest we offer the public is something that WILL work to REDUCE crime, instead of something that WONT work to reduce crime but will infringe further on my rights. Do something about the root problem that allows violence in our country:

1) The fact that people are encouraged to comply with BGs, encouraging criminal behavior.
2) The fact that criminals will not spend much time in jail due to overcrowding.
3) The fact that mental issues are not properly treated.

I know we can't solve all of these problems, but the fact is that banning guns will not solve the problem, so there is no reason for me to suggest giving up some of my rights for PR purposes. Let's get the politicians to stop applying bandaids to the papercut when there's a gaping shotgun wound in society's thorax. It's like my signature says: if the real goal is to stop violence, then work with gun owners. We want to stop violence, too. We take an active role in preventing violence against ourselves, and a vocal role in what will reduce violence in our society. Gun bans aren't the way, and conceding for the sake of PR is not the way either.

 

[stonecutter2]

Then you are part of the problem.

Appeasing them might make them go away.........for now. But they'll be back, wanting more, until there's nothing left to take. These people won't be satisfied until Nerf foam dart launchers and suction cup pistols are banned

Fine. I'm part of the problem because I won't write to my representatives with your opinions of how you feel about this issue.

I don't write my representatives to give them other people's opinions.

Have a great day.

 

[Skribs]

Watson, I don't think they have the resources to back that up. And I'm pretty sure there would be huge rammifications for making current semi-auto weapons NFA. All but 1 of my guns are semi-automatic, and I can't afford a $200 tax stamp for each. What about people who own dozens of pistols, rifles, or semi-auto shotguns? Making semi-automatic NFA would financially cripple those individuals and really incite civil unrest amongst the armed populace. That would be a very bad idea.

 

[Skribs]

Stonecutter, if you agree with gun control legislation, even a "compromise" in which we slip farther towards a total ban, then yes, you are a part of the problem.

What do we get from these "compromises"? Nothing. We get financial penalties, delays, and in some localities even total bans on certain products. We get nothing in return.

 

[rdefabri]

Any politician that bends on this is making a mistake.

I am sensitive to what happened - I'm a parent of children in this age range, and I live in NJ - not far from CT. I am devastated over the senseless acts and loss of life.

I posted on another thread here some stats that everyone should look at. We are talking about ~9,750 deaths per year (c. 2009) committed with an illegal (purchased or stolen) gun. I accept that's 9,750 too many, but it's less than 1/4 of 1% of our population. The demographic most impacted are males between the ages of 18-34 (~8,069)...so children are far far less.

Yet the number of fatalities in traffic accidents is far greater (33,808), and roughly 1/3 are DUIs. The penalties for DUI are relatively soft compared to the penalties for even improper transport of a firearm (certainly in NJ).

When you see the facts, you can conclude this is a non-issue. Willingly giving away our individual rights is not the answer. If you want to fingerprint me, license me, background check me, WHATEVER....I'm not the guy you're looking for, so why bother? Laws apply only to those who follow...means the perp still has the weapons to commit the act.

Give up nothing.

 

[481]

Stonecutter, if you agree with gun control legislation, even a "compromise" in which we slip farther towards a total ban, then yes, you are a part of the problem.

What do we get from these "compromises"? Nothing. We get financial penalties, delays, and in some localities even total bans on certain products. We get nothing in return.

This.

Senseless violence cannot be prevented by senseless legislation.

 

[colorsman]

I have put on my Edgar Cayce hat and have seen the following happening over the next four years:

Congress will pass an assault weapon ban similar to the Clinton era ban

This is all the Obama administration will need to issue executive orders in increasing severity on firearms covered by the act.

1) Ban the manufacture of these firearms
2) Ban the commercial sale of any existing firearms / parts / supplies
3) Ban the private sale of any existing firearms / parts / supplies
4) Order that owners turn in these firearms to the government ( they will not need to come after the guns as a law will be passed that says something along the line ‘possession will be a felony in involving serious prison time’ attrition over time will take these firearms out of circulation.).
5) Begin to tax ammunition on the level that cigarettes are taxed
6) Encourage state and local governments to add additional taxes on ammunition

The Supreme Court already has four rabidly anti gun judges on the bench. Obama will be adding at least two more during his administration. Any gun case appearing before this new court will lose.

 

[stonecutter2]

This.

Senseless violence cannot be prevented by senseless legislation.

It will only be senseless legislation if we refuse to even sit at the bargaining table.

 

[stonecutter2]

I have put on my Edgar Cayce hat and have seen the following happening over the next four years:

Congress will pass an assault weapon ban similar to the Clinton era ban

This is all the Obama administration will need to issue executive orders in increasing severity on firearms covered by the act.

1) Ban the manufacture of these firearms
2) Ban the commercial sale of any existing firearms / parts / supplies
3) Ban the private sale of any existing firearms / parts / supplies
4) Order that owners turn in these firearms to the government ( they will not need to come after the guns as a law will be passed that says something along the line ‘possession will be a felony in involving serious prison time’ attrition over time will take these firearms out of circulation.).
5) Begin to tax ammunition on the level that cigarettes are taxed
6) Encourage state and local governments to add additional taxes on ammunition

The Supreme Court already has four rabidly anti gun judges on the bench. Obama will be adding at least two more during his administration. Any gun case appearing before this new court will lose.

Fears of a total ban at this stage are premature at best.

 

[481]

It will only be senseless legislation if we refuse to even sit at the bargaining table.

Wrong.

The '94 AWB has already been proven to be senseless legislation. The '94 AWB didn't prevent the Columbine tragedy and the duplicate legislation in Connecticut failed to stop the Sandy Hook tragedy.

There is no need to bargain anything in the Bill of Rights (including the 2A) and law-abiding Americans needn't be penalized anymore by ineffective restrictive firearms legislation since they've done nothing to merit that action.

 

[Skribs]

Colors, a total breach of the second amendment like that would most likely result in civil war. I don't see that as very likely at this stage. They have to incrementalize first to hopefully reduce the amount of guns in the hands of private citizens in order to get us to comply willingly.

Stonecutter, if I walked up to you and demanded $100, and you told me no, would you want to bargain at $20? Or is that still stealing?

How about after I take your $20, I come up tomorrow and ask for $80. We again compromise at $20. By the end of the week, I'll still have my $100, because we bargained every time.

I'm saying step up to the table and say "no, don't take any of my stuff. We've been 'bargaining' for almost 80 years now (NFA was '34) and haven't gotten diddly, but keep giving more to you. Crime is still a problem." At the very least, if any new regulations do come in, then adamantly refusing any controls will result in the "compromise" being closer to what we want than if we "give in". Although I will make sure that if legislation is coming to light I will write to congress and tell them flat out if they vote approving any regulation, they will not get my vote in the next election.

 

[stonecutter2]

Stonecutter, if you agree with gun control legislation, even a "compromise" in which we slip farther towards a total ban, then yes, you are a part of the problem.

What do we get from these "compromises"? Nothing. We get financial penalties, delays, and in some localities even total bans on certain products. We get nothing in return.

Who the heck said I agree with it??? I never did. I said I won't write to my representatives to tell them other peoples' opinions, which I won't. That's not why I write to representatives. I write them to tell them how I feel, not anyone else.

Seriously, step back and calm down.

To suggest I support gun control legislation after I've joined the NRA and ISRA is totally reprehensible. Man why would waste my money like that?

I will state this emphatically and as clearly as possible:

The public wants SOMETHING done. They EXPECT it. A classroom of 1st graders are gone, that's deeply affected people.

Something will be passed.

I am not supporting any bans at all, I am supporting stricter purchase controls and measures to ensure the right people have access to what they want, and less chance that the wrong people get their hands on the fruits of our 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Skribs]

In this case, he stole the weapons from his mother after killing her. The only way to prevent him from having access to the weapon would be to prevent his mother - a law abiding citizen and avid shooter - from obtaining guns.

In general, 85% of firearm-related unjustified homocides are commited with weapons that are already illegal for them to own for one reason or another. Making them "more illegal" would not fix this problem.

I disagree with the notion that further controls, be it on background checks or hardware itself, would result in criminals having less access to weapons. I believe that stricter controls on the law-abiding citizen, be it through cool-down periods, or outright bans on hardware, are all part of the gun control goal of incrementalism, and anyone who supports stricter measures without looking at the root of the cause is in favor of further restricting 2A rights.

And yes, if you support increases in gun control, you are basically paying the NRA to fight against you as far as I'm concerned.

 

[stonecutter2]

Stonecutter, if I walked up to you and demanded $100, and you told me no, would you want to bargain at $20? Or is that still stealing?

How about after I take your $20, I come up tomorrow and ask for $80. We again compromise at $20. By the end of the week, I'll still have my $100, because we bargained every time.

I'm saying step up to the table and say "no, don't take any of my stuff. We've been 'bargaining' for almost 80 years now (NFA was '34) and haven't gotten diddly, but keep giving more to you. Crime is still a problem." At the very least, if any new regulations do come in, then adamantly refusing any controls will result in the "compromise" being closer to what we want than if we "give in". Although I will make sure that if legislation is coming to light I will write to congress and tell them flat out if they vote approving any regulation, they will not get my vote in the next election.

If you tried to rob me of money, you would be a thief, plain and simple. The comparison makes no sense.

You are implying that taking part in negotiating for inevitable legislation is "losing." That has been our experiences, I understand.

However, there are ways we can contribute to this discussion for the betterment of all involved. We don't simply have to lose. We all must look past the old ways of thinking and find solutions to the problems that we face today.

 

[stonecutter2]

In this case, he stole the weapons from his mother after killing her. The only way to prevent him from having access to the weapon would be to prevent his mother - a law abiding citizen and avid shooter - from obtaining guns.

In general, 85% of firearm-related unjustified homocides are commited with weapons that are already illegal for them to own for one reason or another. Making them "more illegal" would not fix this problem.

I disagree with the notion that further controls, be it on background checks or hardware itself, would result in criminals having less access to weapons. I believe that stricter controls on the law-abiding citizen, be it through cool-down periods, or outright bans on hardware, are all part of the gun control goal of incrementalism, and anyone who supports stricter measures without looking at the root of the cause is in favor of further restricting 2A rights.

And yes, if you support increases in gun control, you are basically paying the NRA to fight against you as far as I'm concerned.

You folks are so obsessed with the fact that I'm paying the NRA and ISRA to fight against me, and that I'm for some kind of gun control.

I have no further patience for it. Time for me to move on.

 

[Skribs]

Like I've said in many posts on the subject: the solution is not with gun control. It is through a complete restructuring of our legal and social systems. I'm willing to step up to the table and figure out what will prevent crime. I'm not willing to sacrifice my guns for the sake of appeasing the anti's.

The metaphor is that the gun control advocates are robbing us of our rights that should be granted by the constitution. We give a little every time, which they call a "reasonable compromise." Then next tragedy they jump on suggesting another "reasonable compromise." When does it stop?

This is why when the question is "what should we give up in terms of gun rights" I say "nothing." Because it doesn't fix the problem. Let's instead look at the more complex issues that are causing these problems and try to fix those. It won't stop all crime (nothing realistically will) but it will make the country a far better place to live in for the law-abiding citizen.

 

[razorback2003]

I think it is ok to have debate and talk with people who do not agree, but to give away more on top of what else has been given away is unwise.

1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994 were all 'compromises' that gun owners lost on. Yeah 86 was an improvement that you could transport across state lines, but when NY still arrests that is not a lot of protection. Then on top of it 86 no new machine guns.

 

[razorback2003]

Skribs,

You are correct. This is deeper than access to weapons. To me it is morals, our judicial system, and our mental health system.

Morals as in what made this boy, as crazy as he was, have inside of him the hate to kill his mother and little kids.

Mental health system as in why was he not being treated for his illness or not enough treatment.

Judicial as in why the system failed to commit this kid. Also why when people do horrible things, why are they not held accountable. Playing X Box in jail for a few years is not my idea of punishment. Conviction, then short appeals for a couple of years, and then execution is what I consider punishment.

 

[Jeff White]

No compromise!! We don't have to give up anything and I don't intend to.

I have spent 5 days reading of the attacks on social media against NRA members (I don't fool with social media so I have read about it in news reports) I have read the stories about calls for NRA members to be killed. I am an NRA life member and I should be killed because an evil madman killed children?

I have listened while politicians and media personalities have blamed me for the crime.

I WILL NOT NEGOTIATE NOR COMPROMISE WITH THE LUNATICS ON THE OTHER SIDE!! None of us should. If they seriously want to have a reasoned discussion they need to shut the rhetoric down now. Until they do we don't talk, we don't negotiate. You can't talk to these people, they aren't interested in talking. They are immature people driven by emotion and incapable of having a reasoned discussion.

Fortunately the American people agree with me:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/s...link&utm_term=All Gallup Headlines - Politics

To Stop Shootings, Americans Focus on Police, Mental Health
Democrats substantially more likely to see assault gun ban as effective
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are most likely to say that an increased police presence at schools, increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and decreased depiction of gun violence in entertainment venues would be effective in preventing mass shootings at schools. Americans rate the potential effectiveness of a ban on assault and semi-automatic guns as fourth on a list of six actions Gallup asked about......the rest of the story at the link

 

[armoredman]

I hate the phrase, but I'll use it anyway...DITTO!

 

[7.5-Swiss]

I think we should keep in mind that we are probably outnumbered, there is a pretty good chance that some sort of gun restrictions will come out of this (misguided though it may be).

Gun restriction supporters have the best of intents but they see the world differently than us, most of them probably don't make distinctions between AR-15s and full-auto M16s, and they probably believe that this never would have happened if an AR-15 was illegal (as distasteful as it is to consider - would a sporting shotgun have been any less effective? and no one is talking about banning those)

I hope the NRA has a strategy for dealing with this hugely emotionally charged situation. Its easy to say no compromise and scoff at the thought of one - but compromises do work, the slippery slope concept is not set in stone nor is it a a rule of physics. (the AWB expired, Heller vs. DC, Chicago recently - all of that happened after 1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994) I do not want to lose my rights any more than the rest of you - but we may have to offer something up - requiring all firearm transaction to go through an FFL really that big of a sacrifice to make to preserve our other rights? If we don't compromise on something (as small an issue as it may be) than we are forcing the other side to try their hardest to brute-force their politics through unilaterally - and who knows what that will be.

 

[armoredman]

I'll compromise to letting this sign being placed in vulnerable schools with the wherewithal to back it up.

However, EOs are not laws. They are policy decisions regarding enforcement of existing laws.

Then how did the Dream Act get "passed" by EO when Congress wouldn't, and the clearly illegal "recess" non-recess appointments, which i haven't heard of being rescinded? I'm not disbelieving you, but I haven't seen the official links, and please don't condescendingly tell me to look up how my government works, OK? So, how about it, how did those two things come about?

but compromises do work,

Yes, ask Neville Chamberlain how well the White Paper compromise worked for him. Or, far more closely related to this discussion, how about that wonderful compromise with the amendment that closed the National Registry? Bad idea. Now we have no reason to - SCOTUS has RULED it IS an individual right, and this individual refuses to give up any more ground.

 

[Jeff White]

Gun restriction supporters have the best of intents but they see the world differently than us, most of them probably don't make distinctions between AR-15s and full-auto M16s, and they probably believe that this never would have happened if an AR-15 was illegal (as distasteful as it is to consider - would a sporting shotgun have been any less effective? and no one is talking about banning those)

Someone who knew how to run one could have done as much or even more damage with a 12 gauge shotgun plugged at 3 rounds or even a double barrel.