artbabe
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,041
Jun 26, 2014 1:59:10 GMT
|
Post by artbabe on Jun 18, 2016 15:39:52 GMT
I wouldn't want the 2nd amendment to be repealed because I don't want the government to be the only people with guns. We are so used to a stable government in this country that we can't imagine a time when it won't be. But we don't know what the future will be.
I appreciate the people in this thread who are clarifying what an assault weapon is, what military grade is, what semi-automatic is. I have been to gun shows, my father was an antique gun collector who educated me on guns; I am familiar with the differences. I get frustrated when I'm talking to anti-gun people who list all of these rules they want in place but don't understand what a semi-automatic is, or what makes something an assault weapon. It was refreshing to see people in this thread who actually did understand what they were talking about.
We do need rules that make sense and we need better enforcement of the rules that we already have.
That being said, I don't own a gun and probably never will. I still believe strongly in the 2nd amendment.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 18, 2016 15:42:23 GMT
Why? I don't have children at home. I don't have grandchildren. There are no children in our neighborhood because we live in an adults only neighborhood. Please explain to me why you think that I should have to store my guns in a way that protects children and PROVE it before I can purchase a gun. ETA: For what it's worth, most of my guns are stored in a safe, but that's to ensure that they aren't stolen. I would be interested in knowing the answer to your question for people that have no children/grandchildren/child visitors. Washington state already has background checks, 10 day waiting period for the background check to come back, no selling to felones or those convicted of DV. Since the no fly list is has so many inaccuracies, we do not include that. Is there no way to get your name off the no fly list?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 18, 2016 15:56:37 GMT
It's hard to have any discussion about guns when more then half of the folks who shall we say are pro gun always manage to get these two pharses in their opening discussion about gun laws : * More gun laws do nothing but penalize law biding gun owners. Criminals won't follow the laws and still get guns. * Look how well the gun laws work in Chicago. And a new one popped up yesterday. *If you are not a gun owner you don't get to make the rules. I believe the original intent of the comment was "if you are not a gun owner you don't get a say period". On the "less guns" side we are accused of having some secret agenda to get rid of all guns. Maybe that was true around Sandy Hook but I personally haven't seen it for years in these discussions. What I want to see done is the following: 1. All gun laws are Federal laws so they will apply equally across the country. The current laws are so piecemeal they are bound to fail. Uniform laws have a better chance of working. 2. Background checks on all gun sales. Yes that includes private sales. 3. Not all types of guns should be available to the public. 4. Folks on the no fly list or terror watch list should not be able to buy guns. We are a country of laws. There is a reason for those laws and that is to stop one of us from harming another one of us. I was thinking about the different laws last night and the intent was always the same and it's to protect the citizens of this country. But yet when it comes to gun laws there is this resistance that I don't understand. Yes criminals will break the laws, look at our prisons, but that is no reason why gun laws, that work, shouldn't be enacted. Perfectly stated.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 18, 2016 15:57:26 GMT
Why? I don't have children at home. I don't have grandchildren. There are no children in our neighborhood because we live in an adults only neighborhood. Please explain to me why you think that I should have to store my guns in a way that protects children and PROVE it before I can purchase a gun. ETA: For what it's worth, most of my guns are stored in a safe, but that's to ensure that they aren't stolen. I would be interested in knowing the answer to your question for people that have no children/grandchildren/child visitors. Washington state already has background checks, 10 day waiting period for the background check to come back, no selling to felones or those convicted of DV. Since the no fly list is has so many inaccuracies, we do not include that. Wanted to add that while Washington state has the DV conviction law, it needs to go a step further and guns need to be removed from the home when a domestic violence call is answered by the police. And those guns should not be returned until after there is firm evidence that the individuals are not mentally ill or are not guilty of domestic violence. I was a peripheral victim of a murder-suicide committed in my oncologist's office while I was undergoing critical treatment. The victim had filed a restraining order against her husband (the gunman) and he had undergone a 72 hour psych hold then checked himself out. The Sheriffs department had removed his weapons but had to return them by law. He picked them up and immediately went to her workplace and shot her then himself in front of staff and a roomful of patients receiving chemo. This is not ok! We need some common sense gun laws to prevent this happening. As long as there is a path to get your weapons back if a charge is in error I don't see how due process is violated.
|
|
|
Post by lurkingsince2001 on Jun 18, 2016 17:29:46 GMT
I would be interested in knowing the answer to your question for people that have no children/grandchildren/child visitors. Washington state already has background checks, 10 day waiting period for the background check to come back, no selling to felones or those convicted of DV. Since the no fly list is has so many inaccuracies, we do not include that. Wanted to add that while Washington state has the DV conviction law, it needs to go a step further and guns need to be removed from the home when a domestic violence call is answered by the police. And those guns should not be returned until after there is firm evidence that the individuals are not mentally ill or are not guilty of domestic violence. I was a peripheral victim of a murder-suicide committed in my oncologist's office while I was undergoing critical treatment. The victim had filed a restraining order against her husband (the gunman) and he had undergone a 72 hour psych hold then checked himself out. The Sheriffs department had removed his weapons but had to return them by law. He picked them up and immediately went to her workplace and shot her then himself in front of staff and a roomful of patients receiving chemo. This is not ok! We need some common sense gun laws to prevent this happening. As long as there is a path to get your weapons back if a charge is in error I don't see how due process is violated. Yes in your example the system failed. Your state already had more restrictions in place than most and he still did it. Something to ponder. The fact he was able to check himself out implies the "experts" didn't have an overpowering need/justifiable reason to keep him there against his will. So do we discount their opinions now? Goodness knows they make mistakes. But who doesn't? Do we now disarm everyone who ever has a psych hold or an arrest for a violent crime? We could wait for actual conviction but that could take years. What becomes the criteria there? Who sets it? If and when it doesn't work, what's our next course of action? How far do we legislate until we are doing nothing more than patting ourselves on the back and not really making a difference? Or worse, just using the restrictions as an excuse to limit the number of guns out there? (I know rapid fire questions may seem argumentative or aggressive here but I don't mean it that way. I really want to know thoughts on this.) And I stand by what I said earlier about motivated killers will always find a way. I get you are pro-restrictions on guns, you've had a bad experience with one. Thus what I said earlier about once bit twice shy. But, in your heart of hearts, do you truly believe that he wouldn't have found another way? He could have stabbed her, cut her brake line, blunt force trauma to the head, so many ways we hear about all the time. If he had, would you have blamed the knife, the car, the baseball bat, or would you have just said he was a deranged person and the system failed her? I think at this point many peas are so entrenched in their positions that they aren't even listening to each other anymore. I think some are reacting more to who the poster is than what they actually post sometimes, which is never the way to intelligent discourse. But these threads have always been polarizing so I shouldn't be surprise. I usually avoid them and political threads, and will not doubt go back to continuing to do so. Government, any government, has an agenda and is riddled with error, and prone to mistakes as history has shown. I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of any administration going in and messing with the document that's the foundation of our system in a restrictive way. If we're to get in to the habit, when would it stop? How far is too far? Is it all right as long as the restrictions are the ones you (general you) agree with? What about once they aren't? Just something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 18, 2016 17:48:47 GMT
Wanted to add that while Washington state has the DV conviction law, it needs to go a step further and guns need to be removed from the home when a domestic violence call is answered by the police. And those guns should not be returned until after there is firm evidence that the individuals are not mentally ill or are not guilty of domestic violence. I was a peripheral victim of a murder-suicide committed in my oncologist's office while I was undergoing critical treatment. The victim had filed a restraining order against her husband (the gunman) and he had undergone a 72 hour psych hold then checked himself out. The Sheriffs department had removed his weapons but had to return them by law. He picked them up and immediately went to her workplace and shot her then himself in front of staff and a roomful of patients receiving chemo. This is not ok! We need some common sense gun laws to prevent this happening. As long as there is a path to get your weapons back if a charge is in error I don't see how due process is violated. Yes in your example the system failed. Your state already had more restrictions in place than most and he still did it. Something to ponder. The fact he was able to check himself out implies the "experts" didn't have an overpowering need/justifiable reason to keep him there against his will. So do we discount their opinions now? Goodness knows they make mistakes. But who doesn't? Do we now disarm everyone who ever has a psych hold or an arrest for a violent crime? We could wait for actual conviction but that could take years. What becomes the criteria there? Who sets it? If and when it doesn't work, what's our next course of action? How far do we legislate until we are doing nothing more than patting ourselves on the back and not really making a difference? Or worse, just using the restrictions as an excuse to limit the number of guns out there? (I know rapid fire questions may seem argumentative or aggressive here but I don't mean it that way. I really want to know thoughts on this.) And I stand by what I said earlier about motivated killers will always find a way. I get you are pro-restrictions on guns, you've had a bad experience with one. Thus what I said earlier about once bit twice shy. But, in your heart of hearts, do you truly believe that he wouldn't have found another way? He could have stabbed her, cut her brake line, blunt force trauma to the head, so many ways we hear about all the time. If he had, would you have blamed the knife, the car, the baseball bat, or would you have just said he was a deranged person and the system failed her? I think at this point many peas are so entrenched in their positions that they aren't even listening to each other anymore. I think some are reacting more to who the poster is than what they actually post sometimes, which is never the way to intelligent discourse. But these threads have always been polarizing so I shouldn't be surprise. I usually avoid them and political threads, and will not doubt go back to continuing to do so. Government, any government, has an agenda and is riddled with error, and prone to mistakes as history has shown. I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of any administration going in and messing with the document that's the foundation of our system in a restrictive way. If we're to get in to the habit, when would it stop? How far is too far? Is it all right as long as the restrictions are the ones you (general you) agree with? What about once they aren't? Just something to think about. I'm not as pissed off about the psych part as I can understand the ambiguity there. I am pissed off about the restraining order. The Sheriffs office was LEGALLY required to give him back his weapons. I think this loophole has since been closed due to lobbying done by the victims family in this case. ETA the system didn't fail. All the laws were followed. The system wasn't strong enough to protect her in the first place. 2nd ETA: Yes he may still have found a way to kill her. But he wouldn't have done it in a way that traumatized countless other people. I do not think that having laws in place that keep weapons out of the hands of people WITH RESTRAINING ORDERS IN PLACE is curtailing anyone's rights.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 18, 2016 18:10:33 GMT
Merge I appreciate how you have discussed this issue. I want changes, but I'm honestly trying to still process what is the right answer. What's frustrating is when you are in the middle. I'm for new gun control laws. I don't want the second amendment repealed. I want zero guns sold to those on the watch list. I want the government to do something with a system that has shown that they have made critical mistakes for those who SHOULD NOT have been able to purchase guns. I don't own any guns, but I have shot them. Does my opinion count? I don't want guns taken away from responsible people who have never done anything wrong. I grew up in a culture of responsible gun owners. I am surrounded by hunters, target shooting enthusiasts, and collectors. I honestly don't see the need for a person to own an AR-15, BUT the 2 people I know who own them, I don't think they should be punished. They do NOT have the mentality that GUNS KILL. They do not own them or use them for those purposes except LEGALLY hunting animals.
All that being said, they are NOT fixated on guns, guns, guns. It is one of many things that are part of their normal lives. Stupid thing have been said on both sides of this issue and I know I've lost my temper. Thank you for keeping it civil.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 19:03:54 GMT
I do see how my comment about "responsible gun owners will agree" could be seen as snarky and I apologize. Better said by me would have been that these are some things I have discussed with friends who *i* feel are responsible gun owners and I feel are open to discussion. As to the gun safe comment and kids:children. If someone breaks u to your house and guns are unsecured there is a better chance of them being stolen by a criminal and used for more crime. Locking them up doesn't guarantee they won't ever be stolen (like wearing a seat belt doesn't guarantee you will survive a car accident) but it would be less likely. As far as gun owners not wanting their guns registered-why? We register cars and dogs where I live-why shouldn't we register weapons? As far as not paying for education there are many things you have to pay for and have money for to own. Why should a gun or weapon be any different? If you can't afford classes and a safe, perhaps you can't afford a gun. The private sale loopholes absolutely need closed. I have seen NRA representatives and they seem to think any and all restrictions are unacceptable. Clearly something in our country needs to change in regards to gun safety. So what are gun owners willing to push for with the NRA and pressure them to change? I do appreciate your thoughtful and reasonable discussion here, very much. The objection to gun registration is that it could be a precursor to confiscation. It starts out with the best intentions and then it doesn't work as planned and they "have to" expand the ban. It's not paranoid to consider the possibility. We've already seen the IRS abuse it's power and the DOJ against reporters doing their job, the NSA issues, just to name a few. So we know it has major potential for being abused and gun owners aren't willing to give them the opportunity. Perhaps you can't afford the right to defend yourself? It's a right. The government does NOT grant you that right, it's inalienable. That means you can't price citizens out of the right. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. People convicted of a violent felony should not have access to firearms.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 19:05:38 GMT
I am middle of the road. These discussions make me a little crossed eyed because both sides seem to be dismissive to what I think. I don't want outright bans, I don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment, I am not sure that using the terror watch list/no fly list as one of the boxes that should be ticked for gun ownership. I also don't think that some of the publicly available guns should be, I don't think that larger capacity magazines are necessary, I do think that we should be shoring up the laws we have. Middle of the road. I want to have a discussion. I don't want to be patronized, I want to learn about what I don't know. But it seems like that is hard to do right now because people feel strongly about their position and when I ask questions, it is assumed that I support one side or the other and the conversation stops. I've been very careful not to be dismissive and or condescending and I think I've been successful. There are several people here having respectful conversations that you can engage with. Ignore the others, scroll and roll as Happymama says. anxiousmom, I wanted to add that I like that YOU are ALWAYS respectful and reasonable in your posts. There was a time, a looooong time ago when you said something very similar about me. I've since let a couple of people influence my attitude here and I'm working on changing that. That's on me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 19:08:56 GMT
It's hard to have any discussion about guns when more then half of the folks who shall we say are pro gun always manage to get these two pharses in their opening discussion about gun laws : * More gun laws do nothing but penalize law biding gun owners. Criminals won't follow the laws and still get guns. * Look how well the gun laws work in Chicago. And a new one popped up yesterday. *If you are not a gun owner you don't get to make the rules. I believe the original intent of the comment was "if you are not a gun owner you don't get a say period". On the "less guns" side we are accused of having some secret agenda to get rid of all guns. Maybe that was true around Sandy Hook but I personally haven't seen it for years in these discussions. What I want to see done is the following: 1. All gun laws are Federal laws so they will apply equally across the country. The current laws are so piecemeal they are bound to fail. Uniform laws have a better chance of working. 2. Background checks on all gun sales. Yes that includes private sales. 3. Not all types of guns should be available to the public. 4. Folks on the no fly list or terror watch list should not be able to buy guns. We are a country of laws. There is a reason for those laws and that is to stop one of us from harming another one of us. I was thinking about the different laws last night and the intent was always the same and it's to protect the citizens of this country. But yet when it comes to gun laws there is this resistance that I don't understand. Yes criminals will break the laws, look at our prisons, but that is no reason why gun laws, that work, shouldn't be enacted. Perfectly stated. You and I were having a respectful conversation. Why would you abandon it in favor of throwing up your hands and giving up because one other person got frustrated and said something less than respectful?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 19:13:33 GMT
I wouldn't want the 2nd amendment to be repealed because I don't want the government to be the only people with guns. We are so used to a stable government in this country that we can't imagine a time when it won't be. But we don't know what the future will be. I really appreciate you saying that and I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful discussion.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 18, 2016 19:28:16 GMT
Gia I just looked up the cost in my area for handgun training and it was $150. That is a lot less then driving school, for example. I was at a sporting goods store this morning and looked at gun safes and saw one for rifles that was $100. I honestly don't know how much guns cost but it doesn't seem that $150 is so outrageously expensive that it would not be possible for people to take a class. Perhaps the NRA could help offset the cost if there was financial need? (That is truly a comment looking for a way to get more education available to those who would need it, not being snarky).
If I am reading this thread correctly, it does seem like one thing most owners and non-owners agree on is that the loopholes in background checks need to be closed. I wish there was a way to move forward legislatively WITH the NRA since they do control so much (like it or not) that would show a good faith effort on both sides of the debate to move forward.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jun 18, 2016 19:43:59 GMT
I have to admit, the reticence for registration for guns is confusing to me. Almost everyone who has a gun uses it for hunting-although I will concede that not everyone does-but the majority do. I don't know if Florida is the same as everywhere else, but if you purchase a hunting permit here you are required to complete a hunting and safety course. If I remember correctly, there are NO exceptions for military or law enforcement. If you want to hunt, you take the class.
So in essence, there is already a 'list' of people who obtain hunting licenses, with a presumption that those hunters own weapons. Add a second list of former and current military who are also likely to own guns and I think you can cover a good portion of gun owners.
Again, I get that not everyone hunts. But there is already a starting point if the government went crazy and was trying to take away every ones guns, no?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 20:13:46 GMT
Gia I just looked up the cost in my area for handgun training and it was $150. That is a lot less then driving school, for example. I was at a sporting goods store this morning and looked at gun safes and saw one for rifles that was $100. I honestly don't know how much guns cost but it doesn't seem that $150 is so outrageously expensive that it would not be possible for people to take a class. Perhaps the NRA could help offset the cost if there was financial need? (That is truly a comment looking for a way to get more education available to those who would need it, not being snarky). If I am reading this thread correctly, it does seem like one thing most owners and non-owners agree on is that the loopholes in background checks need to be closed. I wish there was a way to move forward legislatively WITH the NRA since they do control so much (like it or not) that would show a good faith effort on both sides of the debate to move forward. You're at $250 to exercise your right to defend yourself. That's a lot of money for the group that can't afford $20 for an ID to vote. Perhaps the NRA could help, I'm not sure if they already do or not. I wonder who could help pick up the tab for those people that can't afford an ID? And I'm also not being snarky, I think it's important to be able to prove you're a citizen before you can vote. The NRA is not some evil group trying to block safety. The NRA IS the citizens. They're protecting your rights and mine. Like I said earlier, there are reasons why they believe and vote the way they do.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 18, 2016 20:30:40 GMT
If you can't afford money for a gun safe and safety course, how would you afford the gun itself?
Or if it is given to you the cost of ammunition?
I don't think the NRA is evil, but I do feel like they value the safety of the right to bear arms more than they value the lives of citizens in this country.. In what I have read and seen in interviews it seems like their main goal is to make sure The rights of gun owners are upheld regardless of what the outcome may be. I have not heard or read about them pushing for any large scale reform in order to protect the masses.
I personally know people who have died from gun violence. One in particular was a woman I worked with who was killed by her husband at work in a video rental place. She had a restraining order against him and he came in and shot her.
My neighbors father was killed as he was fishing. Two men were having an argument and saw him and he ended up getting shot. That gun had been stolen during a burglary from a house where the weapon was unsecured. The father who was shot Left behind two sons who grew up without a father.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 18, 2016 20:55:29 GMT
Gia I just looked up the cost in my area for handgun training and it was $150. That is a lot less then driving school, for example. I was at a sporting goods store this morning and looked at gun safes and saw one for rifles that was $100. I honestly don't know how much guns cost but it doesn't seem that $150 is so outrageously expensive that it would not be possible for people to take a class. Perhaps the NRA could help offset the cost if there was financial need? (That is truly a comment looking for a way to get more education available to those who would need it, not being snarky). If I am reading this thread correctly, it does seem like one thing most owners and non-owners agree on is that the loopholes in background checks need to be closed. I wish there was a way to move forward legislatively WITH the NRA since they do control so much (like it or not) that would show a good faith effort on both sides of the debate to move forward. You're at $250 to exercise your right to defend yourself. That's a lot of money for the group that can't afford $20 for an ID to vote. Perhaps the NRA could help, I'm not sure if they already do or not. I wonder who could help pick up the tab for those people that can't afford an ID? And I'm also not being snarky, I think it's important to be able to prove you're a citizen before you can vote. The NRA is not some evil group trying to block safety. The NRA IS the citizens. They're protecting your rights and mine. Like I said earlier, there are reasons why they believe and vote the way they do. I don't think you can argue for one and against the other. Both are costs to exercise your rights.
|
|
|
Post by lurkingsince2001 on Jun 18, 2016 20:57:12 GMT
Yes in your example the system failed. Your state already had more restrictions in place than most and he still did it. Something to ponder. The fact he was able to check himself out implies the "experts" didn't have an overpowering need/justifiable reason to keep him there against his will. So do we discount their opinions now? Goodness knows they make mistakes. But who doesn't? Do we now disarm everyone who ever has a psych hold or an arrest for a violent crime? We could wait for actual conviction but that could take years. What becomes the criteria there? Who sets it? If and when it doesn't work, what's our next course of action? How far do we legislate until we are doing nothing more than patting ourselves on the back and not really making a difference? Or worse, just using the restrictions as an excuse to limit the number of guns out there? (I know rapid fire questions may seem argumentative or aggressive here but I don't mean it that way. I really want to know thoughts on this.) And I stand by what I said earlier about motivated killers will always find a way. I get you are pro-restrictions on guns, you've had a bad experience with one. Thus what I said earlier about once bit twice shy. But, in your heart of hearts, do you truly believe that he wouldn't have found another way? He could have stabbed her, cut her brake line, blunt force trauma to the head, so many ways we hear about all the time. If he had, would you have blamed the knife, the car, the baseball bat, or would you have just said he was a deranged person and the system failed her? I think at this point many peas are so entrenched in their positions that they aren't even listening to each other anymore. I think some are reacting more to who the poster is than what they actually post sometimes, which is never the way to intelligent discourse. But these threads have always been polarizing so I shouldn't be surprise. I usually avoid them and political threads, and will not doubt go back to continuing to do so. Government, any government, has an agenda and is riddled with error, and prone to mistakes as history has shown. I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of any administration going in and messing with the document that's the foundation of our system in a restrictive way. If we're to get in to the habit, when would it stop? How far is too far? Is it all right as long as the restrictions are the ones you (general you) agree with? What about once they aren't? Just something to think about. I'm not as pissed off about the psych part as I can understand the ambiguity there. I am pissed off about the restraining order. The Sheriffs office was LEGALLY required to give him back his weapons. I think this loophole has since been closed due to lobbying done by the victims family in this case. ETA the system didn't fail. All the laws were followed. The system wasn't strong enough to protect her in the first place. 2nd ETA: Yes he may still have found a way to kill her. But he wouldn't have done it in a way that traumatized countless other people. I do not think that having laws in place that keep weapons out of the hands of people WITH RESTRAINING ORDERS IN PLACE is curtailing anyone's rights. I agree that if a judge has decided that there's enough evidence a person is a threat to another that a restraining order is issued then that person probably shouldn't have a gun. But that still doesn't deny him access to other means. Is it just us trying to make ourselves feel better that we tried to prevent it? See we did all we could! It isn't addressing any other factors. What exactly was the reason given for why LEO was required to return them? Was it because he hadn't actually been convicted of anything? The standard for getting an RO is a lower burden of proof is it not? It's a conundrum. Can or should any government entity be able to make a person hand over or come into a citizen's home and confiscate something if that person has not been found guilty of wrong doing or is under investigation for committing a crime? Such a slippery slope. You said you thought the loophole was fixed. What was the reasoning given? Was it in regards to that specific case? I want my laws made by logical, well-researched heads, not people knee-jerking after another tragedy. That's how you get things like the Patriot Act. As for his actions traumatizing so many others because he used a gun... you are a cooler head than I. I'm gonna be just as traumatized a guy killed a woman near me in front of people whether he played Jack the Ripper or made an IED. But it's your trauma and there's plenty of blame and what ifs to go around. FWIW, I'm sorry it happened in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 20:59:12 GMT
You're at $250 to exercise your right to defend yourself. That's a lot of money for the group that can't afford $20 for an ID to vote. Perhaps the NRA could help, I'm not sure if they already do or not. I wonder who could help pick up the tab for those people that can't afford an ID? And I'm also not being snarky, I think it's important to be able to prove you're a citizen before you can vote. The NRA is not some evil group trying to block safety. The NRA IS the citizens. They're protecting your rights and mine. Like I said earlier, there are reasons why they believe and vote the way they do. I don't think you can argue for one and against the other. Both are costs to exercise your rights. That was sort of my point.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 18, 2016 21:01:11 GMT
I have to admit, the reticence for registration for guns is confusing to me. Almost everyone who has a gun uses it for hunting-although I will concede that not everyone does-but the majority do. I don't know if Florida is the same as everywhere else, but if you purchase a hunting permit here you are required to complete a hunting and safety course. If I remember correctly, there are NO exceptions for military or law enforcement. If you want to hunt, you take the class. So in essence, there is already a 'list' of people who obtain hunting licenses, with a presumption that those hunters own weapons. Add a second list of former and current military who are also likely to own guns and I think you can cover a good portion of gun owners. Again, I get that not everyone hunts. But there is already a starting point if the government went crazy and was trying to take away every ones guns, no? yes, in colorado you have yo take and pass hunters safety to get a hunting license, but not to buy a gun. My oldest ds took hunters safety at 11, my younger at 9 or 10. I can see the reason people don't want to register their guns. You have people calling for banning gun ownership or repealing the 2nd amendment, why would I allow those people to know how many guns I have? A hunting license might tell you that in probably own at least one gun, but doesn't tell you how many or what kind (ftr, I don't hunt so have never had a license) As for the argument up thread about a gun safe being $100, that is a cabinet, not a safe. A good thief could get into one given enough time , but most kids aren't going to. A true gun safe is going to run $400-$1500. We use a locked gun cabinet for our long guns and we have a small gun safe for our handgun.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 18, 2016 21:08:51 GMT
I agree that if a judge has decided that there's enough evidence a person is a threat to another that a restraining order is issued then that person probably shouldn't have a gun. But that still doesn't deny him access to other means. What exactly was the reason given for why LEO was required to return them? Was it because he hadn't actually been convicted of anything? The standard for getting an RO is a lower burden of proof is it not? It's a conundrum. Can or should any government entity be able to make a person hand over or come into a citizen's home and confiscate something if that person has not been found guilty of wrong doing or is under investigation for committing a crime? Such a slippery slope. You said you thought the loophole was fixed. What was the reasoning given? Was it in regards to that specific case?
I want my laws made by logical, well-researched heads, not people knee-jerking after another tragedy. That's how you get things like the Patriot Act.
As for his actions traumatizing so many others because he used a gun... you are a cooler head than I. I'm gonna be just as traumatized a guy killed a woman near me in front of people whether he played Jack the Ripper or made an IED. It's your trauma and there's plenty of blame and what ifs to go around. FWIW, I'm sorry it happened in the first place.[/quote] [
ETA the above is from lurking. I messed up the quote trying to edit.
While I understand where you're coming from, but the argument that we can't have gun control (or stricter gun control) because he could have also killed her with a knife or a baseball bat is not reasonable to me. Not that you were aware of this, but he did have a short time between being released from his psych hold and getting his guns back (I believe 48 hours). So he could have used a knife or baseball bat or any number of things but he chose to wait until he got his guns back.
I think there are lots of things we can do to protect domestic violence victims and stricter gun control laws is a good place to start.
|
|
|
Post by lurkingsince2001 on Jun 18, 2016 21:31:37 GMT
I agree that if a judge has decided that there's enough evidence a person is a threat to another that a restraining order is issued then that person probably shouldn't have a gun. But that still doesn't deny him access to other means. What exactly was the reason given for why LEO was required to return them? Was it because he hadn't actually been convicted of anything? The standard for getting an RO is a lower burden of proof is it not? It's a conundrum. Can or should any government entity be able to make a person hand over or come into a citizen's home and confiscate something if that person has not been found guilty of wrong doing or is under investigation for committing a crime? Such a slippery slope. You said you thought the loophole was fixed. What was the reasoning given? Was it in regards to that specific case? I want my laws made by logical, well-researched heads, not people knee-jerking after another tragedy. That's how you get things like the Patriot Act. As for his actions traumatizing so many others because he used a gun... you are a cooler head than I. I'm gonna be just as traumatized a guy killed a woman near me in front of people whether he played Jack the Ripper or made an IED. It's your trauma and there's plenty of blame and what ifs to go around. FWIW, I'm sorry it happened in the first place. [ ETA the above is from lurking. I messed up the quote trying to edit. While I understand where you're coming from, but the argument that we can't have gun control (or stricter gun control) because he could have also killed her with a knife or a baseball bat is not reasonable to me. Not that you were aware of this, but he did have a short time between being released from his psych hold and getting his guns back (I believe 48 hours). So he could have used a knife or baseball bat or any number of things but he chose to wait until he got his guns back. I think there are lots of things we can do to protect domestic violence victims and stricter gun control laws is a good place to start. [/quote] FWIW, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be ANY control. I'm saying what we have isn't working for a number of reasons. Adding more or reacting isn't going to do anyone any favors. As for him taking time and waiting to go after her, well that just makes it that much more chilling and says more about him. Perhaps he waited for the gun because he was more comfortable using them. It's a distance weapon so perhaps he didn't want to get too close. Perhaps he feared a shot-out with cops. Really, who knows what goes on in such a mind. My point was and is that slapping a band-aid on gun laws helps no one and blaming the weapon instead of addressing the myriad of factors that go into creating a killer is a disservice.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 22:20:52 GMT
If you can't afford money for a gun safe and safety course, how would you afford the gun itself? Or if it is given to you the cost of ammunition? I don't think the NRA is evil, but I do feel like they value the safety of the right to bear arms more than they value the lives of citizens in this country.. In what I have read and seen in interviews it seems like their main goal is to make sure The rights of gun owners are upheld regardless of what the outcome may be. I have not heard or read about them pushing for any large scale reform in order to protect the masses. I personally know people who have died from gun violence. One in particular was a woman I worked with who was killed by her husband at work in a video rental place. She had a restraining order against him and he came in and shot her. My neighbors father was killed as he was fishing. Two men were having an argument and saw him and he ended up getting shot. That gun had been stolen during a burglary from a house where the weapon was unsecured. The father who was shot Left behind two sons who grew up without a father. I'm sorry, I somehow missed your post. If the gun was given to them they may have been given ammunition too. If not, it's pretty cheap and if they have a gun for protection they don't have to keep buying it. I'm not sure what you read, but the NRA's goal is to protect and defend the Constitution and focus on promoting public safety, training to handle weapons safely, hunter safety, and shooting sport promotion. It isn't to negotiate gun rights away to appease people that don't actually know what they're demanding. That's not aimed at you or anyone in particular, it's just the way it is. It is horrific when it happens anywhere, but I'm really sorry that gun violence hit so close to you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 23:07:57 GMT
If the 2nd amendment was repealed tomorrow there still would be guns. They are not going anywhere. But I believe the 2nd Amendment is flawed and has been since it was written. People claim they know the original intent of the amendment but no one does for sure. There was one interpretation for almost 200 years and since the 1970's another interpretation became the new accepted version. For this very reason the 2nd amendment should be repealed because no one knows for sure the original intent.
No matter how many laws we have people are still going to die by guns. But what can happen if there were good laws enacted so they would work instead of the way the laws are set-up now lives could be saved. And sometimes that is the best one can hope for.
I mean look at cars. Just yesterday I read about a head on collision that killed 4 people. But look at what has been done to cut down on accidents like what happened. To drive a car you have to take driver training, you and the car has to be licensed and the license is renewed and usually at that time you have to take a written test. There are all kinds of laws that need to be followed or you can lose your license. Look at the cars and the safety measures that are in cars. From seat belts, air bags, back up & cameras. Then there are the new cars that have capabilities to stop on its own if you are going to hit something and you don't hit the brakes. But in spite all of this people continue to die in accidents but think how many more would have died if these measures hadn't been taken over the years. And I have no doubt technology will continue to make cars safer for everyone in spite of the driver.
So I think we need to accept the fact that in spite of our best efforts people are still going to die by guns but we should work toward enacting laws that work, requirements to meet before you own a gun, and accept the fact not every type of gun will be available to John Q Public. And let's see how many lives can be saved. There is already some evidence that states that have stricter gun laws are seeing a reduction in gun related deaths. And don't bring up Chicago. It has a special set of problems. But they need to be addressed. Last weekend 42 people were shot of which 7 died and that should not be acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jun 18, 2016 23:08:46 GMT
I am middle of the road. These discussions make me a little crossed eyed because both sides seem to be dismissive to what I think. I don't want outright bans, I don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment, I am not sure that using the terror watch list/no fly list as one of the boxes that should be ticked for gun ownership. I also don't think that some of the publicly available guns should be, I don't think that larger capacity magazines are necessary, I do think that we should be shoring up the laws we have. Middle of the road. I want to have a discussion. I don't want to be patronized, I want to learn about what I don't know. But it seems like that is hard to do right now because people feel strongly about their position and when I ask questions, it is assumed that I support one side or the other and the conversation stops. I'm middle of the road too. Dh owns guns but we also want sensible laws so we have voted for them.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jun 18, 2016 23:34:49 GMT
I would be interested in knowing the answer to your question for people that have no children/grandchildren/child visitors. Washington state already has background checks, 10 day waiting period for the background check to come back, no selling to felones or those convicted of DV. Since the no fly list is has so many inaccuracies, we do not include that. Is there no way to get your name off the no fly list? I have no idea, everything says it's really hard. And right now there are 40,000+ people on it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 0:09:41 GMT
Is there no way to get your name off the no fly list? I have no idea, everything says it's really hard. And right now there are 40,000+ people on it. The ACLU has come out against using the no-fly list as a reason to deny someone their right to buy/own a gun because of the lack of due process. Most people don't even know they're on the list until they're denied boarding at an airport. There are no hearings, no burden of evidence or proof, just "predictive judgments" by a government employee. So you could be denied your second amendment right for no good reason. Here's the ACLU's article What To Do If You Think You're on the No-Fly ListSaveSave
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 18:45:57 GMT
link
First off let me say that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA is a slim ball douche bag. I have not like the man since his answer to Sandy Hook. Anyway today he was on the CBS morning news show. He has decided the current attempt for gun control is a "cheap ploy" to take away from a failed terrorist policy. Last night I saw a blurb on TV that said since the Orlando shooting a week ago there have been a little over 200 gun shootings. I'm taking a wild guess here not one of those gun shootings was terrorist related. How about this is an attempt to fix a failed gun policy. He did say he didn't think there should be firearms where people are drinking. Now wouldn't that make establishments where people are drinking "gun free zones"? And haven't the critics of gun free zones said because they are gun free they are soft targets and a magnet for someone who wants to kill a lot of people with no interference from armed people that could be on the site? Looks like old Wayne is a lot like Trump. Just makes it up as he goes along and it doesn't have to make sense because he is pretty sure he can fool the American People. Unfortunately old Wayne and Trump are fooling way too many of the American People with their shit. I see Trump is now talking about racial profiling.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 18:56:58 GMT
It's hard to have any discussion about guns when more then half of the folks who shall we say are pro gun always manage to get these two pharses in their opening discussion about gun laws : * More gun laws do nothing but penalize law biding gun owners. Criminals won't follow the laws and still get guns. * Look how well the gun laws work in Chicago. And a new one popped up yesterday. *If you are not a gun owner you don't get to make the rules. I believe the original intent of the comment was "if you are not a gun owner you don't get a say period". On the "less guns" side we are accused of having some secret agenda to get rid of all guns. Maybe that was true around Sandy Hook but I personally haven't seen it for years in these discussions. What I want to see done is the following: 1. All gun laws are Federal laws so they will apply equally across the country. The current laws are so piecemeal they are bound to fail. Uniform laws have a better chance of working. 2. Background checks on all gun sales. Yes that includes private sales. 3. Not all types of guns should be available to the public. 4. Folks on the no fly list or terror watch list should not be able to buy guns. We are a country of laws. There is a reason for those laws and that is to stop one of us from harming another one of us. I was thinking about the different laws last night and the intent was always the same and it's to protect the citizens of this country. But yet when it comes to gun laws there is this resistance that I don't understand. Yes criminals will break the laws, look at our prisons, but that is no reason why gun laws, that work, shouldn't be enacted. Perfectly stated. You stated: So I believed you and had a real conversation with you. I respectfully addressed your claim that gun rights advocates are using semantics to shut down conversation. I showed you why that wasn't the case at all and backed it up with facts. Respectfully. When you dumped that respectful, real conversation to jump back on the "it's too hard to have real conversation here" bandwagon, I began to doubt you ever really wanted a real conversation. Then when you jumped ship to go join the bullying pile on of another gun rights advocate, you pretty much erased all doubt that you never really wanted "real conversation".
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 19:24:49 GMT
You stated: So I believed you and had a real conversation with you. I respectfully addressed your claim that gun rights advocates are using semantics to shut down conversation. I showed you why that wasn't the case at all and backed it up with facts. Respectfully. When you dumped that respectful, real conversation to jump back on the "it's too hard to have real conversation here" bandwagon, I began to doubt you ever really wanted a real conversation. Then when you jumped ship to go join the bullying pile on of another gun rights advocate, you pretty much erased all doubt that you never really wanted "real conversation". I'm probably going to be sorry in asking this but why did you feel the need to basically repeat your displeasure that someone doesn't want to play with you 2 days after the first time you expressed your displeasure? What are you hoping to prove? I mean you made your "point" the first time around. Bit puzzled by what you are trying to accomplish this time around.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 10:56:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 19:58:32 GMT
You stated: So I believed you and had a real conversation with you. I respectfully addressed your claim that gun rights advocates are using semantics to shut down conversation. I showed you why that wasn't the case at all and backed it up with facts. Respectfully. When you dumped that respectful, real conversation to jump back on the "it's too hard to have real conversation here" bandwagon, I began to doubt you ever really wanted a real conversation. Then when you jumped ship to go join the bullying pile on of another gun rights advocate, you pretty much erased all doubt that you never really wanted "real conversation". I'm probably going to be sorry in asking this but why did you feel the need to basically repeat your displeasure that someone doesn't want to play with you 2 days after the first time you expressed your displeasure? What are you hoping to prove? I mean you made your "point" the first time around. Bit puzzled by what you are trying to accomplish this time around. I didn't "repeat my displeasure" as you put it. I originally asked why she left the real conversation she said she wanted, in favor of complaining there was no way to have a real conversation. The next thing you see is my conclusion about it. Two different things, entirely.
|
|