What are your thoughts on gun control, because I think that laws on this need to be passed in the United States? They are not going to eliminate all mass shootings, but reduce them in number. Modest measures proposed after the Sand Hook shooiting and other events were never passed at the federal level.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1305293&p=18255967&hilit=Sandy+hook#p18255967

I think they should just enforce the current laws that we have.

Nothing short of complete confiscation will stop mass shooters from doing what they do. Most of them have already violated many gun regulations before they even pulled the trigger.

LabQuest wrote:

I think they should just enforce the current laws that we have.

Nothing short of complete confiscation will stop mass shooters from doing what they do. Most of them have already violated many gun regulations before they even pulled the trigger.

+1

ArchGuy1 wrote:

What are your thoughts on gun control, because I think that laws on this need to be passed in the United States? They are not going to eliminate all mass shootings, but reduce them in number. Modest measures proposed after the Sand Hook shooiting and other events were never passed at the federal level.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1305293&p=18255967&hilit=Sandy+hook#p18255967

You need an overarching concept, gun control by itself doesn't do all that much.

johns624 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

I think they should just enforce the current laws that we have.

Nothing short of complete confiscation will stop mass shooters from doing what they do. Most of them have already violated many gun regulations before they even pulled the trigger.

+1

Because guns are impossible to obtain in all the other counties that don't, or almost don't, have mass shootings?

Best regards
Thomas

The current civil unrest and the push to defund (or even abolish) the police demonstrates exactly why guns are needed. If no one else is going to protect you, you have to be able to protect yourself.

N583JB wrote:

The current civil unrest and the push to defund (or even abolish) the police demonstrates exactly why guns are needed. If no one else is going to protect you, you have to be able to protect yourself.

Maybe you want to find out what defunding the police is about from sources that don't lie about it. Police departments have been abolished, and streets ended up safer.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

The current civil unrest and the push to defund (or even abolish) the police demonstrates exactly why guns are needed. If no one else is going to protect you, you have to be able to protect yourself.

Maybe you want to find out what defunding the police is about from sources that don't lie about it. Police departments have been abolished, and streets ended up safer.

Best regards
Thomas

The problem is that even the "defund the police" advocates can't agree on what the phrase means. A significant portion of them actually want police departments completely abolished. We saw that in CHOP and now CHOP is per capita one of the most dangerous places on earth.

N583JB wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

The current civil unrest and the push to defund (or even abolish) the police demonstrates exactly why guns are needed. If no one else is going to protect you, you have to be able to protect yourself.

Maybe you want to find out what defunding the police is about from sources that don't lie about it. Police departments have been abolished, and streets ended up safer.

Best regards
Thomas

The problem is that even the "defund the police" advocates can't agree on what the phrase means. A significant portion of them actually want police departments completely abolished..

I am sure you can support that claim quantitatively with a study.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Maybe you want to find out what defunding the police is about from sources that don't lie about it. Police departments have been abolished, and streets ended up safer.

Best regards
Thomas

The problem is that even the "defund the police" advocates can't agree on what the phrase means. A significant portion of them actually want police departments completely abolished..

I am sure you can support that claim quantitatively with a study.

best regards
Thomas

https://bongino.com/chaz-chop-now-the-w ... ous-nation

That was before the most recent murder of an unarmed black child and shooting of another, so CHOP's numbers have only gotten worse.

tommy1808 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

What are your thoughts on gun control, because I think that laws on this need to be passed in the United States? They are not going to eliminate all mass shootings, but reduce them in number. Modest measures proposed after the Sand Hook shooiting and other events were never passed at the federal level.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1305293&p=18255967&hilit=Sandy+hook#p18255967

You need an overarching concept, gun control by itself doesn't do all that much.

johns624 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

I think they should just enforce the current laws that we have.

Nothing short of complete confiscation will stop mass shooters from doing what they do. Most of them have already violated many gun regulations before they even pulled the trigger.

+1

Because guns are impossible to obtain in all the other counties that don't, or almost don't, have mass shootings?

Best regards
Thomas

So you're implying its not the access to guns that's the issue then?

LabQuest wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

What are your thoughts on gun control, because I think that laws on this need to be passed in the United States? They are not going to eliminate all mass shootings, but reduce them in number. Modest measures proposed after the Sand Hook shooiting and other events were never passed at the federal level.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1305293&p=18255967&hilit=Sandy+hook#p18255967

You need an overarching concept, gun control by itself doesn't do all that much.

johns624 wrote:

+1

Because guns are impossible to obtain in all the other counties that don't, or almost don't, have mass shootings?

Best regards
Thomas

So you're implying its not the access to guns that's the issue then?

Yup... ease of access certainly plays a role, especially how quick you can get one, but that is just one factor among many.

Statistically Germany has an illegal firearm essentially per household, yet crime with guns is rare.

best regards
Thomas

The discussion about this is so irrational that we can firmly and with surety say: There is a cult around the guns.

Thus, I would use the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to prevent the United States from making any laws benefitting such a cult.

The fact that so many are willing to resort to violence, be it with a gun, a stick, a skateboard; the issue isn't guns. The issue is mindset, no fear of persecution. BLM Protester shot a driver twice. And for what? Based on the logic that many here share, one bad apple ruins the whole bunch, the same can be said for the BLM guys; if they resort to shooting unarmed, non-threatening people, they make a great argument for why gun control is a stupid idea. Yes, let's go down this road: it demonstrates two facts... Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws, yet it is ineffective to stop the senseless gun violence, and second, Black Lives Matter are hypocrites for not addressing the Chicago violence. Why aren't they up Lightfoot's ass? Keep advocating for defunding law enforcement, all that is happening is Americans are arming themselves like never before. Gun shops are doing a lot of business. So what next? Gunshow loopholes? What?

N583JB wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

The problem is that even the "defund the police" advocates can't agree on what the phrase means. A significant portion of them actually want police departments completely abolished..

I am sure you can support that claim quantitatively with a study.

best regards
Thomas

https://bongino.com/chaz-chop-now-the-w ... ous-nation

That was before the most recent murder of an unarmed black child and shooting of another, so CHOP's numbers have only gotten worse.

You answered a question i didnt ask.

Best regards
Thomas

Gun sales have never been higher. You can forget about gun control. With the discussion over "defunding the police," regular people will need far more guns than they previously did.

Guns need to be registered and permitted, and all private sales registered. Far too many idiots are buying them these days.
Bump stocks and large magazine sales need to be restricted.

All the Gun Manufacturer's are benefiting from and enabling the misinformation feeding into the misinformed folks purchasing these weapons. At the end of the day, it will cause most of these folks financial heartache as their gun values plummet in the resale market, plus the lost investment they could spend on food since their current legislative leaders are not doing any good job stabilizing the economy or health of this country.

LCDFlight wrote:

Gun sales have never been higher. You can forget about gun control. With the discussion over "defunding the police," regular people will need far more guns than they previously did.

I guess you can point us to a study showing exploding gun ownership rates for Camden N.J.? Since crime rate dropped after they dissolved their PD...

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

I am sure you can support that claim quantitatively with a study.

best regards
Thomas

https://bongino.com/chaz-chop-now-the-w ... ous-nation

That was before the most recent murder of an unarmed black child and shooting of another, so CHOP's numbers have only gotten worse.

You answered a question i didnt ask.

Best regards
Thomas

My mistake, I thought you had quoted my entire post.

The "abolish the police" movement is pretty new and disorganized, so I don't know that any scientific studies of it exist, yet. But, in their own words, leaders in that movement are not shy about what they want-

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opin ... olice.html

tommy1808 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Gun sales have never been higher. You can forget about gun control. With the discussion over "defunding the police," regular people will need far more guns than they previously did.

I guess you can point us to a study showing exploding gun ownership rates for Camden N.J.? Since crime rate dropped after they dissolved their PD...

Best regards
Thomas

Camden didn't really "dissolve" its police force. It created a brand new one that was even bigger than the one they got rid of.

casinterest wrote:

Guns need to be registered and permitted, and all private sales registered. Far too many idiots are buying them these days.
Bump stocks and large magazine sales need to be restricted.

All the Gun Manufacturer's are benefiting from and enabling the misinformation feeding into the misinformed folks purchasing these weapons. At the end of the day, it will cause most of these folks financial heartache as their gun values plummet in the resale market, plus the lost investment they could spend on food since their current legislative leaders are not doing any good job stabilizing the economy or health of this country.

I know many gun owners (myself included), and I don't know a single one that buys guns as an investment. Moreover, money spent on security is money well spent.

casinterest wrote:

Guns need to be registered and permitted, and all private sales registered. Far too many idiots are buying them these days.
Bump stocks and large magazine sales need to be restricted.

All the Gun Manufacturer's are benefiting from and enabling the misinformation feeding into the misinformed folks purchasing these weapons. At the end of the day, it will cause most of these folks financial heartache as their gun values plummet in the resale market, plus the lost investment they could spend on food since their current legislative leaders are not doing any good job stabilizing the economy or health of this country.

1. Bump stocks are illegal.
2. How many manufacturers' ads have you ever seen in a non hunting/shooting magazine? I work in a large gun shop (4000+ a year) and almost all our sales in the last 4 months have been to first time buyers. They have no access to gun publications. If anything, they are spurred by the media, all sides.
3. Gun manufacturers are not huge conglomerates. In fact, most are relatively small businesses with small ad budgets. I read a few years ago that Colt only had 150 employees. Most makers (other than S&W, Sig, Ruger and Remington) are domiciled in the type of building that you see in light industrial parks that have machine shops, etc.
4. Many here say we need stricter laws, because the current ones aren't strong enough. No, they aren't enforced but are pretty strict. I remember a story from years ago about a rogue gun dealer in Tennessee who was prosecuted for selling literally hundreds of guns to known criminals. Many of these guns were recovered at crime scenes. He could have served decades in prison but IIRC, he got 18 months. It is a felony to attempt to purchase a gun if you know that you're legally unable to possess one. Yet, the ATF/US Attorney never prosecute those cases. Some people need to have examples set with them and the results widely publicized.
5. Like N583JB said, I don't buy guns as an investment. I buy them for enjoyment, just like any other hobby. Yes, I have guns for protection, but that's not the main reason. I buy them for nostalgia, hunting and target shooting, for the most part. I'm not destitute and will put my net worth up against yours any day of the week. You're under the illusion that all gun owners are white rednecks with low wage jobs. I recently had a friend die of the virus and he was an ex-state representitive in Michigan (term limits) who was a big gun owner and collector---and a Democrat. I always kidded him that I was going to "out" him to his party if he messed with my pension.

Last I heard, bump fire stocks were illegal. Friend owns a gun shop, he can't keep inventory. People are even settling for Hi-Points. Go figure. Lots of new people at the range. Even anti-gun friends are asking to come out and get some lessons and training. Ammo wavered for a bit, but prices are coming down slowly, but its up there. Friends are doing group buys of 5.56. Magazines are flying of the shelves. So people are exercising their RTKBA.

One question;

Pre COVID, we were constantly hearing about mass shootings in the US.

Have they stopped happening, or are they not being reported?.

N583JB wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Guns need to be registered and permitted, and all private sales registered. Far too many idiots are buying them these days.
Bump stocks and large magazine sales need to be restricted.

All the Gun Manufacturer's are benefiting from and enabling the misinformation feeding into the misinformed folks purchasing these weapons. At the end of the day, it will cause most of these folks financial heartache as their gun values plummet in the resale market, plus the lost investment they could spend on food since their current legislative leaders are not doing any good job stabilizing the economy or health of this country.

I know many gun owners (myself included), and I don't know a single one that buys guns as an investment. Moreover, money spent on security is money well spent.

I've purchased many and continue to purchase WW1, WW2, and surplus guns that have proven to be a great investments and stores of money. I bought two crates ( one create is 20 rifles) of Mosin Nagant 1891/30's about 12 years ago and I probably paid $65 a rifle. It wouldn't be much trouble to sell them for $450 a rifle today. I've been buying M1 Garands from the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) since they were $300. I've got a few M1D Sniper models that are worth in the thousands now.

I'll agree, buying a new gun from your local sporting goods store isn't an investment, but buying the right guns has proven to be a worthy investment for me over the last 15 years.

The Constitution would have to be amended. Under article 2 we have a right to bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Changing that will never ever happen. As it is now we have too many controls on fire arms. This is why we need to ensure we keep elected officials in place that have vowed to keep our 2nd Amendment rights.

AA747123 wrote:

The Constitution would have to be amended. Under article 2 we have a right to bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Changing that will never ever happen. As it is now we have too many controls on fire arms. This is why we need to ensure we keep elected officials in place that have vowed to keep our 2nd Amendment rights.

It's very telling that the same document that grants everyone over the age of 18 the right to vote means nothing to the same people who scream about the 2nd amendment. You can place millions of hoops for someone to vote, but even a single hoop to buying a gun is tyranny.

Here's the kicker: when asked why they need the 2nd Amendment, it's to protect against a tyrannical government...but if a regular Joe Average from a different political ideology aims a gun at law enforcement or even a government official, then they need to be arrested and jailed (even if they're justified).

Additionally, only SOME people apparently benefit from the 2nd Amendment. White person with a gun? Law abiding citizen protecting their neighborhood. Colored person with a gun? Suspicious thug looking for trouble.

Take the whole amendment down and replace it with something palatable where the right to bear arms is not denied, provided you demonstrate that you can bear the responsibility...and allow states to regulate how its citizens should procure weapons. If Texas wants to give away guns every year, have at it; if California says you need a license and insurance, go for it.

Curiously, states regulate gun ownership right now, today, so there’s no change there. Nothing in the Bill of Rights calls for demonstration of responsibility, it’s assumed as part of “self government”, but the “I got rights brigade” of all stripes forgets their duty of self discipline.

The whole “defund the police” and COVID has created 2.5 million new gun owners. NRA instructors are max’d in my state giving courses, talking new shooters thru the hoops and loops required to purchase and own a firearm. The common refrain is “what’s all this BS I have to do, forms, courses, applications, fees. I read on the interwebs I could just go buy a gun.” Oh, the humanity of liberals finding out the truth.

LCDFlight wrote:

Gun sales have never been higher. You can forget about gun control. With the discussion over "defunding the police," regular people will need far more guns than they previously did.

Took the words out of my mouth

einsteinboricua wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

The Constitution would have to be amended. Under article 2 we have a right to bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Changing that will never ever happen. As it is now we have too many controls on fire arms. This is why we need to ensure we keep elected officials in place that have vowed to keep our 2nd Amendment rights.

It's very telling that the same document that grants everyone over the age of 18 the right to vote means nothing to the same people who scream about the 2nd amendment. You can place millions of hoops for someone to vote, but even a single hoop to buying a gun is tyranny.

Here's the kicker: when asked why they need the 2nd Amendment, it's to protect against a tyrannical government...but if a regular Joe Average from a different political ideology aims a gun at law enforcement or even a government official, then they need to be arrested and jailed (even if they're justified).

Additionally, only SOME people apparently benefit from the 2nd Amendment. White person with a gun? Law abiding citizen protecting their neighborhood. Colored person with a gun? Suspicious thug looking for trouble.

Take the whole amendment down and replace it with something palatable where the right to bear arms is not denied, provided you demonstrate that you can bear the responsibility...and allow states to regulate how its citizens should procure weapons. If Texas wants to give away guns every year, have at it; if California says you need a license and insurance, go for it.

You need to read up on what current gun laws are, since you don't seem to be familiar with them.

LCDFlight wrote:

Gun sales have never been higher. You can forget about gun control. With the discussion over "defunding the police," regular people will need far more guns than they previously did.

I bought my first gun a couple of weeks ago and just passed my CCW class last week. It was packed out. The gun store and safety class couldn't pump out enough customers. This was in a city that went blue in 2016. My class was filled with young people and old people from both sides of the political spectrum.

The gun store where I purchased my firearm sold about 20% more guns per day than they received so they are going to sell out sooner than later.

LabQuest wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Gun sales have never been higher. You can forget about gun control. With the discussion over "defunding the police," regular people will need far more guns than they previously did.

I bought my first gun a couple of weeks ago and just passed my CCW class last week. It was packed out. The gun store and safety class couldn't pump out enough customers. This was in a city that went blue in 2016. My class was filled with young people and old people from both sides of the political spectrum.

The gun store where I purchased my firearm sold about 20% more guns per day than they received so they are going to sell out sooner than later.

True. What many don't realize is that most gun owners are not "gun people". Just like most car owners are not "car people". They just want something in the nightstand or bedroom closet for when something goes bump in the night. Something to protect them between the time they make the 9-1-1 call and when the police respond.

johns624 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Gun sales have never been higher. You can forget about gun control. With the discussion over "defunding the police," regular people will need far more guns than they previously did.

I bought my first gun a couple of weeks ago and just passed my CCW class last week. It was packed out. The gun store and safety class couldn't pump out enough customers. This was in a city that went blue in 2016. My class was filled with young people and old people from both sides of the political spectrum.

The gun store where I purchased my firearm sold about 20% more guns per day than they received so they are going to sell out sooner than later.

True. What many don't realize is that most gun owners are not "gun people". Just like most car owners are not "car people". They just want something in the nightstand or bedroom closet for when something goes bump in the night. Something to protect them between the time they make the 9-1-1 call and when the police respond.

That's exactly what my reasoning was. The only reason I got my CCW in addition to the gun is so I can carry it when I hike and camp in the wilderness, which I do a lot. I'm never going to carry it going to the grocery store or movie theater. Its just going to sit in my closet next to my fire extinguisher. I hope I never have to use either of them but they're there in case of an emergency.

bennett123 wrote:

One question;

Pre COVID, we were constantly hearing about mass shootings in the US.

Have they stopped happening, or are they not being reported?.

They are still happening but there hasn't been one where a lot of white people were killed. There are still dozens and dozens (sometimes over a hundred during a bad week) of black people being shot every week in Chicago but the news doesn't care about them. Its only when a school or some white kid goes bezerk is when the news cares.

Virtually all the mass shootings are gang and drug related and take place in small areas of neighborhoods in a handful of cities.

There is no way to have a discussion about firearms control. Even if "we need to enforce current laws" is done, Republicans complain that "you are taking away our 2A rights!" even though they are the ones demanding current laws be enforced!

Also, Chicago has zero to do with mass shootings in Aurora or Las Vegas or Orlando or Columbine or Sandy Hook or UVA or Parkland or the two gun waving lawyers in St. Louis. I hear "but our 2A rights!" then some off the rails comment about Chicago. Well, that is what our 2A rights are, right? The right to carry and use firearms every time we feel threatened, right?

seb146 wrote:

There is no way to have a discussion about firearms control. Even if "we need to enforce current laws" is done, Republicans complain that "you are taking away our 2A rights!" even though they are the ones demanding current laws be enforced!

Also, Chicago has zero to do with mass shootings in Aurora or Las Vegas or Orlando or Columbine or Sandy Hook or UVA or Parkland or the two gun waving lawyers in St. Louis. I hear "but our 2A rights!" then some off the rails comment about Chicago. Well, that is what our 2A rights are, right? The right to carry and use firearms every time we feel threatened, right?

The difference is, the gun crimes in Chicago are by and large being committed by illegal guns carried by people who are not allowed to possess those guns. Ergo, the constant shootings there are a reminder that gun control doesn't work.

seb146 wrote:

There is no way to have a discussion about firearms control. Even if "we need to enforce current laws" is done, Republicans complain that "you are taking away our 2A rights!" even though they are the ones demanding current laws be enforced!

Also, Chicago has zero to do with mass shootings in Aurora or Las Vegas or Orlando or Columbine or Sandy Hook or UVA or Parkland or the two gun waving lawyers in St. Louis. I hear "but our 2A rights!" then some off the rails comment about Chicago. Well, that is what our 2A rights are, right? The right to carry and use firearms every time we feel threatened, right?

Chicago has everything to do with mass shootings in the USA. Its where the vast majority of them occur week after week. We've not had a TV sensational shooting in a while but its literally happening every single day in Chicago. Like a parkland school shooting event in a neighborhood every single weekend. The news doesn't care though because they are black and gang members.

You're mistaking drive by shootings (what most mass shootings are in the USA by far) and lone wolf attacks which is a tiny percentage of the deaths caused by mass shootings. I'd probably not be too far off in saying the gang shootings are already being carried out by people who aren't allowed to posess guns in a city where its illegal to carry them.

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

N583JB wrote:

The difference is, the gun crimes in Chicago are by and large being committed by illegal guns carried by people who are not allowed to possess those guns. Ergo, the constant shootings there are a reminder that gun control doesn't work.

Gun control only keeps good people from getting guns, not the bad people.

NIKV69 wrote:

Gun control only keeps good people from getting guns, not the bad people.

That is a well loved and oft stated "as if it's fact" trope that is false. Please provide your PROOF that ONLY good people are prevented from getting guns.

Sorry but a lot of bad people are prevented from getting guns and basically any "good" person that wants to can buy a gun from numerous sources.

Tugg

LabQuest wrote:

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

I basically agree overall with this. I al;ways bring it back to my family and how they "regulate" guns within the family. A typical hunting family, you need to prove you can properly handle a firearm before any family member is given a gun or is allowed to go hunting or bring a firearm into the house.

It's simple, it's smart, and most any hunting family follows this "code" (whatever you want to call it). Basically any respectable firearm carrying individual follows this. I'll ask this to any poster on A.net that carries a firearm, will you allow just anyone to carry a weapon around you or go hunting with you? Or do you have to know them and how they are with a weapon? Aren't there people you would not want to be around when they have a weapon or go hunting with you?

Tugg

LabQuest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

There is no way to have a discussion about firearms control. Even if "we need to enforce current laws" is done, Republicans complain that "you are taking away our 2A rights!" even though they are the ones demanding current laws be enforced!

Also, Chicago has zero to do with mass shootings in Aurora or Las Vegas or Orlando or Columbine or Sandy Hook or UVA or Parkland or the two gun waving lawyers in St. Louis. I hear "but our 2A rights!" then some off the rails comment about Chicago. Well, that is what our 2A rights are, right? The right to carry and use firearms every time we feel threatened, right?

Chicago has everything to do with mass shootings in the USA. Its where the vast majority of them occur week after week. We've not had a TV sensational shooting in a while but its literally happening every single day in Chicago. Like a parkland school shooting event in a neighborhood every single weekend. The news doesn't care though because they are black and gang members.

You're mistaking drive by shootings (what most mass shootings are in the USA by far) and lone wolf attacks which is a tiny percentage of the deaths caused by mass shootings. I'd probably not be too far off in saying the gang shootings are already being carried out by people who aren't allowed to posess guns in a city where its illegal to carry them.

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

There are shootings every day in the United States. Not just Chicago. Shootings happen in Reno and Salt Lake and Dallas as well. Singling out Chicago is wrong. Also, yes, there are those gun safety measure in place, but they are not used in places like Texas and Indiana because "big gub'mint is takin r gunz!!!" crowd decided we don't need no stinking background checks or red flag laws. Recall that red flag laws would have made a difference in the last mass shooting we had. But, that infringes on rights, according to Republicans.

We have five year olds shooting their parents or siblings, too. They can not legally possess guns and, yet, they are shooting people.

It is illegal to carry marijuana in some states, yet people do. It is illegal to drive drunk yet people do. Maybe if the government tracked guns that would help. But, again, we can't do that or anything similar because Republicans whine that violates 2A rights. Maybe they should stop thinking those Black people are illegally carrying guns and start understanding they are part of a "well regulated militia".

seb146 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

There is no way to have a discussion about firearms control. Even if "we need to enforce current laws" is done, Republicans complain that "you are taking away our 2A rights!" even though they are the ones demanding current laws be enforced!

Also, Chicago has zero to do with mass shootings in Aurora or Las Vegas or Orlando or Columbine or Sandy Hook or UVA or Parkland or the two gun waving lawyers in St. Louis. I hear "but our 2A rights!" then some off the rails comment about Chicago. Well, that is what our 2A rights are, right? The right to carry and use firearms every time we feel threatened, right?

Chicago has everything to do with mass shootings in the USA. Its where the vast majority of them occur week after week. We've not had a TV sensational shooting in a while but its literally happening every single day in Chicago. Like a parkland school shooting event in a neighborhood every single weekend. The news doesn't care though because they are black and gang members.

You're mistaking drive by shootings (what most mass shootings are in the USA by far) and lone wolf attacks which is a tiny percentage of the deaths caused by mass shootings. I'd probably not be too far off in saying the gang shootings are already being carried out by people who aren't allowed to posess guns in a city where its illegal to carry them.

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

There are shootings every day in the United States. Not just Chicago. Shootings happen in Reno and Salt Lake and Dallas as well. Singling out Chicago is wrong. Also, yes, there are those gun safety measure in place, but they are not used in places like Texas and Indiana because "big gub'mint is takin r gunz!!!" crowd decided we don't need no stinking background checks or red flag laws. Recall that red flag laws would have made a difference in the last mass shooting we had. But, that infringes on rights, according to Republicans.

We have five year olds shooting their parents or siblings, too. They can not legally possess guns and, yet, they are shooting people.

It is illegal to carry marijuana in some states, yet people do. It is illegal to drive drunk yet people do. Maybe if the government tracked guns that would help. But, again, we can't do that or anything similar because Republicans whine that violates 2A rights. Maybe they should stop thinking those Black people are illegally carrying guns and start understanding they are part of a "well regulated militia".

And which amendment gives a “right” (in reality, something we don’t get to vote and requires government compelling interest to regulate) to carrying drugs or driving drunk (or sober)?

Tugger wrote:

basically any "good" person that wants to can buy a gun from numerous sources.

Tugg

Then he isn't a "good person", is he?

Tugger wrote:

I'll ask this to any poster on A.net that carries a firearm, will you allow just anyone to carry a weapon around you or go hunting with you? Or do you have to know them and how they are with a weapon? Aren't there people you would not want to be around when they have a weapon or go hunting with you?

Tugg

Sure, there are. I work in a large gun shop. There are some people who I don't want to be around. Just like there are some people I won't get in a car with if they're driving. That doesn't mean they can't drive or own a gun; it just means I don't want to be around them. I'd feel bad if they didn't have the means to defend themselves in a life threatening situation. Being able to hit a bullseye at 25yds has no bearing on whether they could successfully protect themselves from someone coming into their bedroom at night who's 8ft away.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And which amendment gives a “right” (in reality, something we don’t get to vote and requires government compelling interest to regulate) to carrying drugs or driving drunk (or sober)?

Are the amendments properly complete and encompassing of all things that should be "rights"? Are those enumerated the only things that are and should be rights and be protected? Or might they be incomplete?

And please don't go to the "well just write up what ever you want and get it passed" way to avoid just answering the question. (You have in the past expressed disagreement with the filibuster and super-majorities etc. which is designed into the amendment process so doubt you would go there but others might).

Tugg

seb146 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

There is no way to have a discussion about firearms control. Even if "we need to enforce current laws" is done, Republicans complain that "you are taking away our 2A rights!" even though they are the ones demanding current laws be enforced!

Also, Chicago has zero to do with mass shootings in Aurora or Las Vegas or Orlando or Columbine or Sandy Hook or UVA or Parkland or the two gun waving lawyers in St. Louis. I hear "but our 2A rights!" then some off the rails comment about Chicago. Well, that is what our 2A rights are, right? The right to carry and use firearms every time we feel threatened, right?

Chicago has everything to do with mass shootings in the USA. Its where the vast majority of them occur week after week. We've not had a TV sensational shooting in a while but its literally happening every single day in Chicago. Like a parkland school shooting event in a neighborhood every single weekend. The news doesn't care though because they are black and gang members.

You're mistaking drive by shootings (what most mass shootings are in the USA by far) and lone wolf attacks which is a tiny percentage of the deaths caused by mass shootings. I'd probably not be too far off in saying the gang shootings are already being carried out by people who aren't allowed to posess guns in a city where its illegal to carry them.

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

There are shootings every day in the United States. Not just Chicago. Shootings happen in Reno and Salt Lake and Dallas as well. Singling out Chicago is wrong. Also, yes, there are those gun safety measure in place, but they are not used in places like Texas and Indiana because "big gub'mint is takin r gunz!!!" crowd decided we don't need no stinking background checks or red flag laws. Recall that red flag laws would have made a difference in the last mass shooting we had. But, that infringes on rights, according to Republicans.

We have five year olds shooting their parents or siblings, too. They can not legally possess guns and, yet, they are shooting people.

It is illegal to carry marijuana in some states, yet people do. It is illegal to drive drunk yet people do. Maybe if the government tracked guns that would help. But, again, we can't do that or anything similar because Republicans whine that violates 2A rights. Maybe they should stop thinking those Black people are illegally carrying guns and start understanding they are part of a "well regulated militia".

You're missing the point, as you normally do in gun control discussions. Chicago has very strict gun control laws, akin to San Francisco's. What people are trying to tell you is that if criminals can get guns in Chicago illegally, it's obvious that gun control laws don't work.

seb146 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

There is no way to have a discussion about firearms control. Even if "we need to enforce current laws" is done, Republicans complain that "you are taking away our 2A rights!" even though they are the ones demanding current laws be enforced!

Also, Chicago has zero to do with mass shootings in Aurora or Las Vegas or Orlando or Columbine or Sandy Hook or UVA or Parkland or the two gun waving lawyers in St. Louis. I hear "but our 2A rights!" then some off the rails comment about Chicago. Well, that is what our 2A rights are, right? The right to carry and use firearms every time we feel threatened, right?

Chicago has everything to do with mass shootings in the USA. Its where the vast majority of them occur week after week. We've not had a TV sensational shooting in a while but its literally happening every single day in Chicago. Like a parkland school shooting event in a neighborhood every single weekend. The news doesn't care though because they are black and gang members.

You're mistaking drive by shootings (what most mass shootings are in the USA by far) and lone wolf attacks which is a tiny percentage of the deaths caused by mass shootings. I'd probably not be too far off in saying the gang shootings are already being carried out by people who aren't allowed to posess guns in a city where its illegal to carry them.

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

There are shootings every day in the United States. Not just Chicago. Shootings happen in Reno and Salt Lake and Dallas as well. Singling out Chicago is wrong. Also, yes, there are those gun safety measure in place, but they are not used in places like Texas and Indiana because "big gub'mint is takin r gunz!!!" crowd decided we don't need no stinking background checks or red flag laws. Recall that red flag laws would have made a difference in the last mass shooting we had. But, that infringes on rights, according to Republicans.

We have five year olds shooting their parents or siblings, too. They can not legally possess guns and, yet, they are shooting people.

It is illegal to carry marijuana in some states, yet people do. It is illegal to drive drunk yet people do. Maybe if the government tracked guns that would help. But, again, we can't do that or anything similar because Republicans whine that violates 2A rights. Maybe they should stop thinking those Black people are illegally carrying guns and start understanding they are part of a "well regulated militia".

Seb you really are wrong on this one. It really is all about Chicago. Yes, there are shootings every day in the USA. Its part of the burden of gun ownership. There's going to be those who are law breakers. But Chicago is an outlier. They vastly outnumber every other major metro area by far with mass shooting gun violence. They're protecting their drug territory due to the failed drug war and systematic incarceration policy. There are more guns in areas where gang and drug activity is non-existent. They're using guns because its the only means they have.

You can track guns all day long but if they're stolen what does it matter? Are you willing to go to jail because someone stole your legally purchased gun?

Tugger wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And which amendment gives a “right” (in reality, something we don’t get to vote and requires government compelling interest to regulate) to carrying drugs or driving drunk (or sober)?

Are the amendments properly complete and encompassing of all things that should be "rights"? Are those enumerated the only things that are and should be rights and be protected? Or might they be incomplete?

And please don't go to the "well just write up what ever you want and get it passed" way to avoid just answering the question. (You have in the past expressed disagreement with the filibuster and super-majorities etc. which is designed into the amendment process so doubt you would go there but others might).

Tugg

They’re not positive rights, the Bill of Rights is properly read as prohibitions on government intrusions on natural rights of the people. I don’t where I opposed the filibuster or super majorities as they are there to protect minority rights and prevent majoritarian rule. I favor both. See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Yes, there’s methods to amend the Constitution, use them, if you have a new political idea.

LabQuest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

Chicago has everything to do with mass shootings in the USA. Its where the vast majority of them occur week after week. We've not had a TV sensational shooting in a while but its literally happening every single day in Chicago. Like a parkland school shooting event in a neighborhood every single weekend. The news doesn't care though because they are black and gang members.

You're mistaking drive by shootings (what most mass shootings are in the USA by far) and lone wolf attacks which is a tiny percentage of the deaths caused by mass shootings. I'd probably not be too far off in saying the gang shootings are already being carried out by people who aren't allowed to posess guns in a city where its illegal to carry them.

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

There are shootings every day in the United States. Not just Chicago. Shootings happen in Reno and Salt Lake and Dallas as well. Singling out Chicago is wrong. Also, yes, there are those gun safety measure in place, but they are not used in places like Texas and Indiana because "big gub'mint is takin r gunz!!!" crowd decided we don't need no stinking background checks or red flag laws. Recall that red flag laws would have made a difference in the last mass shooting we had. But, that infringes on rights, according to Republicans.

We have five year olds shooting their parents or siblings, too. They can not legally possess guns and, yet, they are shooting people.

It is illegal to carry marijuana in some states, yet people do. It is illegal to drive drunk yet people do. Maybe if the government tracked guns that would help. But, again, we can't do that or anything similar because Republicans whine that violates 2A rights. Maybe they should stop thinking those Black people are illegally carrying guns and start understanding they are part of a "well regulated militia".

Seb you really are wrong on this one. It really is all about Chicago. Yes, there are shootings every day in the USA. Its part of the burden of gun ownership. There's going to be those who are law breakers. But Chicago is an outlier. They vastly outnumber every other major metro area by far with mass shooting gun violence. They're protecting their drug territory due to the failed drug war and systematic incarceration policy. There are more guns in areas where gang and drug activity is non-existent. They're using guns because its the only means they have.

You can track guns all day long but if they're stolen what does it matter? Are you willing to go to jail because someone stole your legally purchased gun?

There was just a shooting at a mall in Alabama. That makes Alabama an outlier. A few years ago, a woman in San Francisco was shot walking down the street during a private gun sale.

Besides, what makes you think that every gun shot in Chicago is drug related? People have guns for other reasons. Protection from domestic disputes, protection from home invasion, because they look cool.... the list goes on. I am not denying that there is gun violence because of drugs. No doubt. But, just because Chicago has a higher rate of gun violence than, say, Denver, is meaningless. Thanks to the right wing Supreme Court, there is nothing we can do about it. So, stop pointing at Chicago and insisting that is the whole country. Chicago has tried and is trying to do something about it. But with lax gun laws in neighboring states, there is not much they can do. Right wingers on SCOTUS will just strike down laws anyway. I think that is something we need to discuss. Not "but Chicago!"

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

Chicago has everything to do with mass shootings in the USA. Its where the vast majority of them occur week after week. We've not had a TV sensational shooting in a while but its literally happening every single day in Chicago. Like a parkland school shooting event in a neighborhood every single weekend. The news doesn't care though because they are black and gang members.

You're mistaking drive by shootings (what most mass shootings are in the USA by far) and lone wolf attacks which is a tiny percentage of the deaths caused by mass shootings. I'd probably not be too far off in saying the gang shootings are already being carried out by people who aren't allowed to posess guns in a city where its illegal to carry them.

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

There are shootings every day in the United States. Not just Chicago. Shootings happen in Reno and Salt Lake and Dallas as well. Singling out Chicago is wrong. Also, yes, there are those gun safety measure in place, but they are not used in places like Texas and Indiana because "big gub'mint is takin r gunz!!!" crowd decided we don't need no stinking background checks or red flag laws. Recall that red flag laws would have made a difference in the last mass shooting we had. But, that infringes on rights, according to Republicans.

We have five year olds shooting their parents or siblings, too. They can not legally possess guns and, yet, they are shooting people.

It is illegal to carry marijuana in some states, yet people do. It is illegal to drive drunk yet people do. Maybe if the government tracked guns that would help. But, again, we can't do that or anything similar because Republicans whine that violates 2A rights. Maybe they should stop thinking those Black people are illegally carrying guns and start understanding they are part of a "well regulated militia".

You're missing the point, as you normally do in gun control discussions. Chicago has very strict gun control laws, akin to San Francisco's. What people are trying to tell you is that if criminals can get guns in Chicago illegally, it's obvious that gun control laws don't work.

Let's work this out from a different angle:

Jack Daniels distillery is in Moore County, which is dry. Meaning, no liquor sales at all in Moore County. However, someone living in Moore County can cross county lines and purchase Jack Daniels and drive back to their home in Moore County. When I lived in Ashland, Oregon, we used to drive 35 miles into California to buy liquor when the state store in Oregon was closed.

Yes, I know there are laws about buying guns across state lines, but when neighboring states have lax laws, how does that help? Do you honestly think people who have guns and live in Chicago only stay in Chicago? There are trains and buses and even people who own cars who can leave Cook County.

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

There are shootings every day in the United States. Not just Chicago. Shootings happen in Reno and Salt Lake and Dallas as well. Singling out Chicago is wrong. Also, yes, there are those gun safety measure in place, but they are not used in places like Texas and Indiana because "big gub'mint is takin r gunz!!!" crowd decided we don't need no stinking background checks or red flag laws. Recall that red flag laws would have made a difference in the last mass shooting we had. But, that infringes on rights, according to Republicans.

We have five year olds shooting their parents or siblings, too. They can not legally possess guns and, yet, they are shooting people.

It is illegal to carry marijuana in some states, yet people do. It is illegal to drive drunk yet people do. Maybe if the government tracked guns that would help. But, again, we can't do that or anything similar because Republicans whine that violates 2A rights. Maybe they should stop thinking those Black people are illegally carrying guns and start understanding they are part of a "well regulated militia".

You're missing the point, as you normally do in gun control discussions. Chicago has very strict gun control laws, akin to San Francisco's. What people are trying to tell you is that if criminals can get guns in Chicago illegally, it's obvious that gun control laws don't work.

Let's work this out from a different angle:

Jack Daniels distillery is in Moore County, which is dry. Meaning, no liquor sales at all in Moore County. However, someone living in Moore County can cross county lines and purchase Jack Daniels and drive back to their home in Moore County. When I lived in Ashland, Oregon, we used to drive 35 miles into California to buy liquor when the state store in Oregon was closed.

Yes, I know there are laws about buying guns across state lines, but when neighboring states have lax laws, how does that help? Do you honestly think people who have guns and live in Chicago only stay in Chicago? There are trains and buses and even people who own cars who can leave Cook County.

Once again, you need to do some research.
1. All of Illinois has strict laws.
2. It is illegal for a dealer to sell a handgun (used in most shootings) to someone who isn't a resident of the state that they are licensed in.
3. If you're saying that criminals break the law to get guns, what good will more laws do?