little cow

NRA versus Gun Control

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, wolfhaven said:

If laws are no good because criminals don't abide by them then you in essence are saying no laws are effective.  If laws aren't effective then the answer is no laws?  Isn't that what you're saying?  

 No. It's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying, since our current laws are often overlooked, what good would it do to impose even more, stricter laws......laws that also will be ignored by the criminal element.

 Laws work, for those who abide by them......but, imposing stricter laws, won't mean a thing to those who have no intention of living by them......so, why bother?

 The only people stricter laws would impact, are, people who are already law abiding.

Edited by equicrzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enforcement.  That’s what needs to happen.  Laws have no “teeth” without enforcement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nick said:

The weapons manufacturers must be required to vet every buyer.  According to DMV standards.  A car is also a weapon.  

You seem to think a person has to have a driver's license to buy a car and the seller has to "vet" the buyer. Not true in the US. You do need to take a driving test to get a license. But you can buy as many cars as you want without a license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nick said:

here's a pop quiz, just for fun;  who knows which states/agencies regulate firearms?  and what the regs are?

Um, basically, everyone?  Each state imposes it's own rules while Congress is able to restrict firearms *as long as the law does not undermine* the states' ability to maintain a well regulated militia.
Gun laws are found in a number of statutes.  These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport and destruction of firearms, ammunition and accessories.  These laws are enforced by ATF - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

I am NOT going to search out all of the various regulations and what they are for - I'm just not that interested. 
You can do your own research if you are interested.
 

2 hours ago, nick said:

We have a massive opoid epidemic in America.   Doctors are not controlled to whom they give prescriptions.  Hello?? 

Um. Hello?!  This is a patently FALSE statement. 
I have to jump through multiple hoops to get my medication now, due to a regulation change that closely watches what, and how much, Doctor's prescribe to patients.
https://www.verywellmind.com/pain-drugs-drug-seekers-your-doctor-and-the-law-2615364
 

2 hours ago, nick said:

The weapons manufacturers must be required to vet every buyer.  According to DMV standards.  A car is also a weapon.  

Good Heavens, woman!  DMV registers the vehicle after the buyer has bought it from the dealership (or private party) and the dealership gets their product from the manufacturer.  The manufacturer has nothing to do with the sales process.  Do Ford, GM, Chrysler (or any vehicle manufacturer) manufacturing plants vet purchases made from dealerships?  So ridiculous! 
Unless they are making individual sales, in which case, I would expect them to follow the laws regarding background checks and waiting periods.
 

1 hour ago, nick said:

Enforcement.  That’s what needs to happen.  Laws have no “teeth” without enforcement.  

EXACTLY!  And this is why I want to know how Cruz could have had SO MUCH NEGATIVE INTERACTION with law enforcement and NOTHING WAS DONE about him?  Had steps been taken, ANY STEPS to mitigate his ability to act out, this tragedy could have been greatly reduced or avoided.

Busy at work and will have to continue at home, later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The weapons manufacturer must be required to vet every buyer!!??  I've never heard anything so ridiculous, not to mention, impossible.......I can't even formulate a response to that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nick said:

Bingo Heidi.  Somebody asks for some kind of I.D. And proof of insurance.  The DMV has strict rules.   

And you evoking the second amendment is a JOKE.  The founding fathers were talkin about MUSKETS,  not semi automatic weapons.  

First, the DMV has strict rules (registered, inspected and insured) for vehicles being driven on public roads, not for vehicles driven on private property.  So .... your comment falls flat.

Next, you think the Constitution is a JOKE?  I wasn't making a joke.  Many sites stated the NRA are defenders of the 2nd Amendment, are you saying that isn't what they do?  What about the 2nd Amendment, do you think, is a joke?

Last, regarding "muskets" and "semi-automatics" there seem to be two schools of thought on this.  One is interpreted as originalism; "No consideration of the modern understanding of the words, purposes or underlying values is appropriate."  The other is a living document interpretation; "dynamic meaning that changes with the times."
Either way, I feel semi-automatics are protected:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 
With originalism, no limitations or restrictions.
With living document, call it progress if you like, but back in the "musket" era, that is the firearm the military of the time had.  Today's interpretation is for citizens to have available similar firepower as the government, and this means more advanced weaponry than muskets.

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/why-american-citizens-need-assault-rifles

 

Now, while I do not believe in penalizing law abiding citizens for the criminal actions of a few, I also do not see a need for magazine clips of more than 10.  This could reduce the amount of havoc and death wrought by those with criminal activity on their mind while still allowing the law abiding citizens the ability to "bear arms" and protect against a tyrannical government.

Edited by Heidi n Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You know, every time I hear someone say, " but, they were talking about MUSKETS!"..... I think, "well, yeah, because,  that's what they had back THEN!". 

 They couldn't very well mention weapons they knew nothing about at that time.....then, there's that one line that reads....."the right to bear arms.".... meaning, whatever that would be, at whatever time we are in.

 So, should we all go out and get ourselves a musket?

 Ah, heck, just read what Heidi wrote, she's spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   There has to be a commonsense way to stop some of the killing of our youth  in public schools.  A child shouldn't  fear for their life when entering the classroom.  There is something wrong with the idea that government shouldn't take steps, to try avoid this at all costs.  But we have to many in congress that would rather sit on their hands &  do nothing.  I have nothing against, people owning hand guns & hunting rifles,  but few use assault weapons to hunt.  Not all but most of these mass killing have been done with legally bought weapons. 

   Now Off My Soap Box.  PD

Edited by Proud Dad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That well regulated militia argument has a couple of problems. First the "NRA militia" isn't very well regulated. And second, since the lawmakers of the 16th century were not able to imagine semi-automatic weapons, they also did not foresee tanks, mortars, bombers and drones either. I don't think those semi-automatics would be very effective against an over-reaching government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Proud Dad said:

   There has to be a commonsense way to stop some of the killing of our youth  in public schools.  A child shouldn't  fear for their life when entering the classroom.  There is something wrong with the idea that government shouldn't take steps, to try avoid this at all costs.  But we have to many in congress that would rather sit on their hands &  do nothing.  I have nothing against, people owning hand guns & hunting rifles,  but few use assault weapons to hunt.  Not all but most of these mass killing have been done with legally bought weapons. 

   Now Off My Soap Box.  PD

 You're right, PD, there SHOULD be a way to make sure our schools are safe.

 Stricter gun laws won't do that. All throughout history, we've known, people who don't intend to live by the rules/laws, don't care how many new laws are imposed, or, how strict those laws are.....look at the illegal drug trade, drugs keep flowing across our borders, even with  drug laws.... people are still able to buy illegal drugs, it would be the same, even if we stiffened the gun laws.

 There is probably a solution out there, but, it seems no one knows what it is, exactly, except to want to punish everyone, for the actions of a few.

 Maybe, the way to go is, close all public schools, have kids be home schooled..... sounds kind of ridiculous, doesn't it, but, so does trying to ban guns, which is what is actually the intent here, whether or not, people will admit it. (the anti gun lobbyists.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that people wouldn't obey gun laws so we just shouldn't have any is ridiculous. Why have any laws at all?  Some people are just going to disobey them. Silly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jubal said:

And another school shooting. This time in Maryland. This is madness!

It is madness. The only way to prevent it is to start making schools safer. Should we feel like we're in jail if we're at school? Maybe. At least a jail/prison has many more precautions set in place. Metal detectors, make bags go through scanners, do spot checks, etc. etc. If we can keep majority of convicts safe from guns - there is no reason we can't keep precious children safe from guns when they're at school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd Amendment is an interesting one the way it's been misinterpreted in my view.  One common theme is for people to quote Thomas Jefferson about the need to have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government.  Even seen a quote thrown about by George Washington.  What's not looked at is Thomas Jefferson was a prolific writer and produced volumes of writings.  It's also important to note he was thousands of miles away in Paris during the Constitutional Convention.  He wasn't there to debate, draft or compromise the issues.  Jefferson had no direct involvement in the Constitution.  He did send letters, lots and lots of letters but those took months to be delivered.  Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention but didn't participate in any debates, or direction of any drafts.  He kept the process moving forward without stating opinions except to cast a tiebreaker vote when needed.  

The context I look comes from the reasoning behind the 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments.  All three deal with a heavy handed Army centered control the British had.  They feared the power of a large standing Army.  The British Army was responsible for law and order, there wasn't a police force.  No forced quartering of soldiers, no random searches of property or arrests, the innocent could not be compelled to proved testimony by the military authorities.  These issues were very important to the founding fathers.  After these Amendments look at the actions of the founding fathers, to include Washington and Jefferson.  Throughout the Revolutionary War there was an overwhelming pressure to fight the war with colonial militias, not Regular Army troops despite the fact these federal troops vastly outperformed militias.  After the war the Army and Navy were disbanded, reformed, but in very small numbers and no ships.  State Militias were expected to be formed, trained and at the ready if needed in lieu of a large standing Army.  Shay's rebellion was a drawn out process because militias had to be approved by the states and sent to assist the small army.  Immediately afterwards no changes were made to the size of the Army or Navy.  War of 1812 was the same situation.  Fought mostly with militias and an expanded regular Army and Navy.  Again the founding fathers immediately cut the regular Army and Navy.  All throughout the 1800's we depended on raising militias to support our small Army and Navy.  The Civil War was fought mostly with State Militias alongside a smaller Army and Navy.  The emphasis was always on militias because the founding fathers feared the potential power of a large standing Army.  

So the "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment, by their actions, does mean an actual militia that meets to train, has a rank structure and is ready to assist a small Army and Navy.  The Revolutionary War showed them a loose band of citizens was ineffective in combat while a trained militia was more effective and useful.  Not near as effective as the Regular Army but good enough not to require a large standing Army that could be used by a tyrannical government against it's citizens.  

In my mind, if you want to participate in an active, regulated militia you should be issued the service weapon used by the Army.  Securing that weapon is a prime responsibility and if it's stolen or used in a crime then you are just as responsible at the criminal.  You keep your weapon as long as you're in good standing with the regulations of your State's Militia.  No one else is guaranteed the right to own a weapon.  Hunting, sport shooting, protection are all valid reasons to own and shouldn't be stopped.  Doesn't mean you get to own whatever firearms you want.  They can be controlled by several different means.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sad day in our society, when some people get their jollies, from killing innocent children. We are becoming a uncivilized people,  that is against everything our founding fathers stood for. Dad when the crazies are protected, & the innocent are put in the line of fire, by the crazies.  I just know something has to be done, & I really don't care if a few people rights are violated, it won't affect me, unless it is my grandchild is one of those killed by  one of those crazy people.  Then I would hate to think just what I might do,  I'm sick of this BS, all talk & no action, doesn't get it,  Actions speak louder than words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Proud Dad said:

... few use assault weapons to hunt.  Not all but most of these mass killing have been done with legally bought weapons. 

Legal weapon.  Illegal weapon.  Assault weapon is an attached name intending to strike fear into the hearer/reader.  ANY weapon (rifle, gun, knife, bat, car - anything that can be physically used to harm another) can be classified as an assault-whatever when used against another, but without someone actually using the object in a harmful manner, it's just whatever thing it happens to be.  
Government should take steps to protect children at school, but I do not think penalizing legal gun enthusiasts is the way.   People assault others and it is people behaving illegally who need to be punished for their actions.
I like what Pink commented on and I'll expand it; we protect airports, concert venues, jails and courthouses .... why not protect schools in the same way?
http://www.assaultweapontruth.com/

 

3 hours ago, jubal said:

That well regulated militia argument has a couple of problems. First the "NRA militia" isn't very well regulated. And second, since the lawmakers of the 16th century were not able to imagine semi-automatic weapons, they also did not foresee tanks, mortars, bombers and drones either. I don't think those semi-automatics would be very effective against an over-reaching government.

You are sadly misinformed because there is no NRA militia.  
https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/nra.militia.statement.html

I agree semi-automatics would not be effective against tanks, mortars, bombers and drones in a Hunger Games sort of dystopian government future.  Yet that fact does not preclude the American citizens' right to protect themselves by utilizing the 2nd Amendment in whatever manner is available to them (Heaven forbid both scenarios!) IF the government becomes tyrannical OR we are ever invaded and attacked en masse. 
Just below, you claim it is silly and ridiculous to not propose laws because of people-just-ignore-them-so-why-bother reasoning.  Are you saying it would be equally silly or ridiculous for the public to have the ability to be prepared to personally defend against invaders or tyrannical government just because government and military forces have stronger weapons?

 

1 hour ago, jubal said:

The argument that people wouldn't obey gun laws so we just shouldn't have any is ridiculous. Why have any laws at all?  Some people are just going to disobey them. Silly!

No, *criminals* won't obey gun laws, not 'people'.  I don't think anyone espoused having no laws.  It was more along the lines of the same argument of we-don't-need-new-laws-just-enforce-the-ones-we-have.  There will always be people who act outside of societal and legal bounds ~ that is why we have laws and jails in the first place.

 

In another topic, I recall a discussion with LC about DMV requiring registration and insurance for vehicles and how that could apply to gun ownership.  I'm not so sure I like the idea of registration - only because that provides a path to complete removal.  Conversely, I like the idea of law enforcement being able to know what/how-many arms are in a home of Domestic Violence or mental illness that need to be secured and removed.  I also like the idea of having insurance and liability consequences if your legal arms are not properly contained and they fall into the hands of people who ignorantly or willfully mismanage them due to the owner's negligent control of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Proud Dad said:

It is a sad day in our society, when some people get their jollies, from killing innocent children. We are becoming a uncivilized people,  that is against everything our founding fathers stood for. Dad when the crazies are protected, & the innocent are put in the line of fire, by the crazies.  I just know something has to be done, & I really don't care if a few people rights are violated, it won't affect me, unless it is my grandchild is one of those killed by  one of those crazy people.  Then I would hate to think just what I might do,  I'm sick of this BS, all talk & no action, doesn't get it,  Actions speak louder than words.

I'm not affected now, PD. But I do remember the intruder drills at school. We had to pull down all the shades, lock the doors and the kids piled in a corner out of sight. Ridiculous because an intruder could have broken the glass in either door and reached through to open them. We had to be quiet while an appointed adult walked the halls and tried every door. None of the kids took the drills seriously because Columbine had just happened and no one thought it would ever happen again. Fast forward to today when every parent and every kid knows it could happen, and many worry it could be today. It isn't fair. Most adults go to work every day without worrying about being shot. Lawmakers don't have to worry about being shot at work because they made darn sure guns were barred from their workplace. But kids do have to worry because any idiot can own a gun and lawmakers want to make sure they aren't hampered in any way from getting one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    Only one question.  How many young people have to die? , before  we quit arguing sasistics & something is done to end the needless slaughter of our young people. That is my only concern.  Right now I could care less if some peoples rights are stepped on.  Who's protecting the rights of the innocent that are dying?  This thread is useless unless we all step up the plate, & demand change.  The change has to come from both the top & bottom.   This can be argued from now to whenever, but doesn't do anything to change the problem. PD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today in Maryland demonstrates a few things.  Despite the student shooter knowing there is an armed police officer on duty in the school, he planned, prepared and started firing anyway.  If that officer had heard gunshots and came around the corner and there was an armed teacher standing over a dead student in the hallway, there would also be a dead teacher in that hallway.  If the same teacher was standing over a dead student in the hallway and another armed teacher ran around the corner there could very well be a dead teacher laying over the dead student too.  Or two teachers slinging bullets down the hallway until one or both were dead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Again, no one said we shouldn't have gun laws, by now, the conclusion must be, people aren't reading for comprehension, because, that, was never said...... I did say, we already do have laws for purchasing guns, that criminals are not obeying.....why, does anyone think adding even more, stricter laws, will do any good.

 Is it clear, NOW!!??

 I hate nothing more than my words being twisted or, completely ignored, for the sake of someone wanting it to be their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'll just let Heidi go ahead with this from now on...... she's 100% correct, there's nothing else to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make schools closed campuses with no visible access from street-side and metal-detect/scan as every person, box and bag enters.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely unfunded mandates by the federal government.  Poor school districts with leaking roofs, crumbling walls, faulty heating systems that they can't afford to fix, are going to come up with money to remodel entryways and lower level windows, hire security, and buy/maintain metal detectors?  Sealing off and strengthening lower level windows in many older schools will also require adding a central air conditioning system which most schools up north don't have.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this same argument from three or four school shootings ago. Someone says crooks pay no attention to laws But some gun venues (gun shows and private sales) don't have to follow the background check law. So there's an access to guns that could be prevented. But NRA! They are now suing the state of FL because the governor dared to raise the age to buy AR15's to 21. How dare he try to limit access!

The estimate for gun ownership is that the guns in the US are owned by one third of the population. So the two thirds need to change the laws. And that can't happen as long as the NRA is the cash cow for lawmakers. So boycott the NRA if you want to change anything. Don't vote for politicians who accept their money. Don't patronize businesses that are advertising partners.  When they lose their sway, and their influence over lawmakers, some common sense laws can be passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Heidi n Q said:

Make schools closed campuses with no visible access from street-side and metal-detect/scan as every person, box and bag enters.  

 

There's a word for places like that. What is it? Gimme a sec. Oh yeah. Got it. They're called prisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4legsgood said:

There's a word for places like that. What is it? Gimme a sec. Oh yeah. Got it. They're called prisons.

And courthouses, and airports, performing arts centers, museums and other major venues with dense amounts of people and buildings with important and valuable things inside.  Those places don't look like prisons, though America's school systems *are* sometimes called institutions .... so I guess I can take your lead and call them prisons, too.

Wolf made a fantastic comment about crumbling schools with no budgets to maintain their buildings not being able to afford to retrofit for these types of safety precautions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4legsgood said:

There's a word for places like that. What is it? Gimme a sec. Oh yeah. Got it. They're called prisons.

Really! Not to mention, how long would it take to get everybody checked in? Some of the schools today have 1000+ students. As Wolfhaven said, school budgets are bare bones now. Who's going to pay for all those additions? Hey, I have an idea! How about the NRA? They have plenty of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:34 AM, jubal said:

Really! Not to mention, how long would it take to get everybody checked in? Some of the schools today have 1000+ students. As Wolfhaven said, school budgets are bare bones now. Who's going to pay for all those additions? Hey, I have an idea! How about the NRA? They have plenty of money.

there's an idea!  they want less gun legislation, then they can pay for security measures against school shootings.   if airports can do it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I have seen realistic suggestions for changes to gun legislation, I will discuss them with an open mind. I think limiting magazine or clip capacity is a good start, 10 round per clip is plenty really.

I cannot see any realistic way to ban semi-automatic weapons. Do you guys have any idea how many are out there? How many are out there unregistered, unaccounted for? How will LE every get control of them? I have several, bought from private sellers, inherited, traded for etc. How will that be regulated? Are we going to send the military door to door to find them all and confiscate them? 

I would rather my tax money go to making the schools safer just like we do for all those "other" important places. It is so sad to think there are schools that don't have the budget to fix the roof, let alone install measures to protect the kids. I just can't fathom how that even happens.

I don't think there is an answer to this, or there are multiple layers of answers to this. What happened between the time my husband made a rifle in high school shop class and people killing children in school? What happened to us?

We have turned into such an intolerant and judgmental society. Our solutions are often to attack those we disagree with. What does that solve. You hate firearms, I love them; who is right? Whose feelings and emotions do we cater to? Whose feelings do we protect? Better to figure out how to keep bad people from doing bad things and stop worrying about what they do those bad things with. 

I work in a prison. I see the criminal justice system at work every day. I see criminals get far more time for theft, fraud and forgery than for taking a life. This is what is wrong with us. How did that even happen? How does one driver with 15 DUI's get probation (again), while an old man with his first DUI gets 18 months in prison? How does embezzlement get 25 years and murder gets 8? This is what is wrong. The criminal justice system is broken and there is no justice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kdrown said:

When I have seen realistic suggestions for changes to gun legislation, I will discuss them with an open mind. I think limiting magazine or clip capacity is a good start, 10 round per clip is plenty really.

Yeah, killing 10 kids before needing to load another clip is plenty really.

1 hour ago, kdrown said:

I would rather my tax money go to making the schools safer just like we do for all those "other" important places.

I hate to say I told you so:

On 3/20/2018 at 11:11 PM, 4legsgood said:

There's a word for places like that. What is it? Gimme a sec. Oh yeah. Got it. They're called prisons.

But: "David Hogg, a Parkland survivor who has since become an activist for the #NeverAgain movement supporting gun control, described his high school as 'like a prison'"

https://digbysblog.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/turning-country-into-armed-camp.html

Also, too: "The goal, then, isn't to protect children, but to see if any solution to the problem of mass shootings at schools exists which won't require conservatives to give an inch to gun control proponents." (ibid)

1 hour ago, kdrown said:

What happened between the time my husband made a rifle in high school shop class and people killing children in school?

Er, at a guess, people started using rifles to kill children in schools.  Given that, maybe it's just me, but I don't think teaching children in high school to manufacture rifles is a particularly good idea.  As I say, maybe it's just me...

1 hour ago, kdrown said:

I see criminals get far more time for theft, fraud and forgery than for taking a life.

I guess it depends on what you mean by taking a life.  I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now