5 5
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

On 3/28/2023 at 5:00 PM, wmw999 said:

The shooter was assigned female at birth, and lived a large part of her life that way. She only used male pronouns on social media -- is your use of the male pronoun acknowledgment that she may have been misassigned?

Wendy P.

I actually thought at the time she was a male pretending to be female. I was surprised to see it was the other way around. Unusual for mass shooters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

It's not comprehensive, and might not move the dial noticeably on the number of guns,

Initially. If all guns must be registered and accounted for cradle to grave, then when the police come across a gun that is not registered; they confiscate and smelt it. There will always be the "survivalist" mentality of keeping their guns locked away - in case. But, they would be locked away. 

It would take time, but as you say, "It's an entry point." If the NRA had a brain in their head, they would realize the amount of money they could make in education, training, etc. instead of "The libs are coming after your 2nd amendment rights!!!" I joined the NRA for one year back in the mid-80's. They must have spent ten times as much sending me fliers of fear a couple of times a month. And, we were done. 

Ya know, my plan is no different than what we had in the military, cradle to grave responsibility, proper training, maintenance and storage, personal accountability, no walking around base with a weapon on your hip, etc. I really don't see what the big deal is migrating that to a civilian populace. 

Edited by BIGUN
or, populous :)
  • Like 7

Share this post


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

Ya know, my plan is no different than what we had in the military, cradle to grave responsibility, proper training, maintenance and storage, personal accountability, no walking around base with a weapon on your hip, etc

Which makes it fit in with the “well-regulated militia” part of the second amendment. The US isn’t likely to repeal the second amendment in my lifetime; too many diehards have to die first. But this is a step that fits into the “reasonable” box for some people who would never vote to repeal the amendment.

Wendy P. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Initially. If all guns must be registered and accounted for cradle to grave, then when the police come across a gun that is not registered; they confiscate and smelt it. There will always be the "survivalist" mentality of keeping their guns locked away - in case. But, they would be locked away. 

That's a good point that I hadn't considered before.  The desire of people to "protect their guns from a tyrannical dictatorial etc government" might lead to better storage - at least, make them harder for cops/kids to find.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And that's where Bigun's plan is an entry point. It's not comprehensive, and might not move the dial noticeably on the number of guns, but it's more likely to move the dial on people's perception that guns are, in fact, part of the problem, and should be regulated. Small steps are better than no steps.

Wendy P.

Fair enough.

However, any sort of 'cradle to grave' tracking means 'registration.'


I'd be absolutely amazed if that could make it out of committee, let alone to the floor for a vote.

Besides, like the idea of 'universal background checks', it wouldn't do a damned thing to stop these sorts of shootings.
Same as 'proper storage'.

How many of the 'mass shootings' that make the headlines were done with properly purchased, legally owned firearms?
The only one I can think of offhand that wasn't was Sandy Hook, where the shooter stole the guns from his mother, whom he murdered. His mother had legally purchased the guns.

The ONE high profile shooting that was done with an illegally owned firearm (straw purchase, ended up in the hands of a minor) was...

Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Initially. If all guns must be registered and accounted for cradle to grave, then when the police come across a gun that is not registered; they confiscate and smelt it. There will always be the "survivalist" mentality of keeping their guns locked away - in case. But, they would be locked away. 

It would take time, but as you say, "It's an entry point." If the NRA had a brain in their head, they would realize the amount of money they could make in education, training, etc. instead of "The libs are coming after your 2nd amendment rights!!!" I joined the NRA for one year back in the mid-80's. They must have spent ten times as much sending me fliers of fear a couple of times a month. And, we were done. 

Ya know, my plan is no different than what we had in the military, cradle to grave responsibility, proper training, maintenance and storage, personal accountability, no walking around base with a weapon on your hip, etc. I really don't see what the big deal is migrating that to a civilian populace. 

Hi Keith,

First, I applaud your continuing concern & input about the problem.  IMO you are way ahead of most of the posters on here; including me.

Re:  all guns must be registered and accounted for cradle to grave

I would add; if you had a gun that was registered & accounted for and I got my hands on it and committed a crime, you would suffer some responsibility for the crime.

If I loan you my car, I have some responsibility for the crash that you cause.  If anyone doubts this, just ask your insurance company & see what they tell you.

BTDT,

Jerry Baumchen

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2023 at 12:05 PM, billvon said:

So the reasons for so many school shootings, according to republicans, is:

-evil
-drag queens
-Biden eating ice cream
-"Washington"
-woke madness
-naked statues

The reason is NOT:

-easy availability of guns

And so, what is the solution to this??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2023 at 11:16 AM, billvon said:

That's perfect.  And when one of those underpaid armed guards goes postal and takes out a second grade, we can get national guards to watch the armed guards.  There is no possible downside to this.

So, what we have before us is known as a "trend". to simply not act on, is in part, part of the problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, billvon said:

Bigun had a pretty good start listed above.

I went back and looked up the original proposal. It was depressing. Since February of 2018, we been talking about this. How many children have died in that five years. Fuck me. 

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/264339-mass-shootings-proposal-[on-topic]/ 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Bigun had a pretty good start listed above.

How, exactly, would his proposal have affected any of the recent shootings?

Almost all of them were committed by people with no prior record, who had purchased the guns legally.
They passed the background checks.

The one that sticks in my mind relating to background checks or tracking of guns is the one in Aurora (Chicago) IL.
The shooter had purchased the gun legally. 
He had passed the background check, despite having a prior felony conviction in another state (LA?).

He was 'found out' when he applied for a carry permit. The more comprehensive check found the out of state felony.

Was he arrested?
Was his gun confiscated?

No. He received a stern letter informing him that his FOID had been revoked and he should not have a gun.

That was it...


Until he decided to shoot a bunch of people.

I find it rather depressing that so many people are calling for 'universal' background checks, when the people who lie on their paperwork and are denied are virtually NEVER prosecuted for that crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You keep knocking other people's shit while providing none of your own.

And you keep floating ideas that come down to nibbling around the edges that are better than nothing, but not much better and  impossible to implement. Neither of you seem to be willing to grapple with the fact that a wholesale grassroots effort to at least modify the 2nd Amendment is required before a slow change in the culture can begin. I know you are trying your best, and that the answer I am calling for is nearly impossible at this time. My guess is that the problem and the killing needs to get a lot worse before the will to change can become strong enough to overcome the massive amount of resistance it will face. A maddening and very frustrating situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

grassroots effort to at least modify the 2nd Amendment is required

So. you want to double the number of weapons in the US. C'mon, Ken. What's happened each and every time some perceived or actual ban or thought that "Obama" [insert any democrat name here] will change the second amendment.

21 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

A maddening and very frustrating situation.

Truth. I really believe you've got to market it as a "Gun Owner's Responsibility Bill" and get buy-in from both sides. In the end; it may be a Fool's Errand. But any talk of changing, modifying, eradicating the 2nd would be catastrophic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

So. you want to double the number of weapons in the US. C'mon, Ken. What's happened each and every time some perceived or actual ban or thought that "Obama" [insert any democrat name here] will change the second amendment.

Doubling would be somewhat of an exaggeration but your answer just confirms the point. If someone where to try to implement your plan the same rush to buy would happen. And....your plan is likely unconstitutional anyway. You refuse to even admit that the problem has a root cause. And that while very difficult it can be fixed. The constitution has an amending formula for a reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

So. you want to double the number of weapons in the US. C'mon, Ken. What's happened each and every time some perceived or actual ban or thought that "Obama" [insert any democrat name here] will change the second amendment.

Truth. I really believe you've got to market it as a "Gun Owner's Responsibility Bill" and get buy-in from both sides. In the end; it may be a Fool's Errand. But any talk of changing, modifying, eradicating the 2nd would be catastrophic.  

The thing about Bigun’s approach is that it treats the opponents with respect; they may still not vote for it, but they won’t come out with massive “ban responsibility” campaigns.

I recently had a second-degree acquaintance (I.e. friend of a friend) shoot himself; he tried for his head, but got his jaw instead, needing extensive reconstructive surgery. The thing is he was bedridden with Parkinson’s and dementia. Why on fucking earth did he have access to a gun? It’s heartbreaking, and it’s hugely expensive to his family and the taxpayers.

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
34 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The thing about Bigun’s approach is that it treats the opponents with respect;

Sure, but it accomplishes nothing. It's like trying to make an omelette without breaking eggs. Anther term for "treating opponents with respect" is appeasement. It doesn't work. You may as well just stick to Ts and Ps for all the good it will do. It will be necessary to fight like hell to solve the problem. Americans want it both ways. Both Keith and Joe are unwilling to ask the nation to give much up because they are afraid of the backlash.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

So. you want to double the number of weapons in the US. C'mon, Ken. What's happened each and every time some perceived or actual ban or thought that "Obama" [insert any democrat name here] will change the second amendment.

Truth. I really believe you've got to market it as a "Gun Owner's Responsibility Bill" and get buy-in from both sides. In the end; it may be a Fool's Errand. But any talk of changing, modifying, eradicating the 2nd would be catastrophic.  

I think the NRA and the 'alt right' would see that 'Responsibility' as "Registration".

Your 'cradle to grave tracking' is going to be seen as wholesale registration of everyone's guns.

That would be just as 'catastrophic' as any talk of modifying the 2nd.

I know people who intentionally have never bought a gun through a dealer. They have never filled out a 4473. It gives them great comfort that 'the government has no idea that I own any guns.'

I know one guy who doesn't own any gun sold after the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted. Not only does the government not know he has any guns, the government has no record of any of the guns he owns. Extreme? Yes. Paranoid? Sure.

But there's a serious amount of paranoia about the 'government coming for my guns'.

Not sure how to get around that.

And you are absolutely right that I have ZERO ideas on how to prevent more mass shootings.

The reality is that NOBODY does.

I have yet to see ANY proposal that would have any significant effect.
Everything is simply 'do something, do ANYTHING to make me feel safe.'

Absolute 'security theater.'

I'm willing to listen to ideas. I'm just not willing to support ones that:

1 - Cost money.
2 - Infringe on rights.
3 - Accomplish nothing.

Your idea is being pitched as a 'beginning'. A first step that won't actually do much, but will get people open to the idea of restricting gun ownership, with the real restrictions to come later.

The gun rights people have been screaming at the top of their lungs for decades that this is the exact motive behind EVERY gun control 'plan'.
That's why they've fought 'tooth and nail' against every sort of restriction.

The 'funny' part is that I've become a lot lest 'militant' about gun rights in the past years. Back in the 90s, I was 'full boat' pro-gun. 

At the time, the anti-gun crowd had a fair amount of power, had seen successes and was pushing really hard for serious gun control (read what was proposed for "Brady 2" to see what I mean).
At the same time, the BATF was somewhat out of control. They had been documented abusing the rights of gun owners, they had gone 'full retard' at the Branch Davidian raid in Waco and were seen as 'evil' by many, not just the 'gun rights' people.

With the expansion of gun rights, including several SC decisions and carry permits in every state, the threat has diminished greatly.
At the same time, highly publicized mass shootings have increased greatly.

So my 'militancy' has decreased quite a bit (I'm also a little bit 'older & wiser').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Sure, but it accomplishes nothing. It's like trying to make an omelette without breaking eggs. Anther term for "treating opponents with respect" is appeasement. It doesn't work. You may as well just stick to Ts and Ps for all the good it will do. It will be necessary to fight like hell to solve the problem. Americans want it both ways. Both Keith and Joe are unwilling to ask the nation to give much up because they are afraid of the backlash.

Well, being 'afraid of the backlash' is another way of saying "not willing to attempt something that's doomed from the beginning'.

Fun fact: The Ds passed the "Assault Weapons Bill" in 94. 

They lost control of the House and Senate in the 96 mid-terms. It was the first time in a long time that Rs had both houses.

While the gun rights battle was not the entire reason that happened, it was a huge factor.

The NRA made a very large push to defeat the Ds, and had a lot of success. At the national, state and local levels.

The 'backlash' I'm afraid of is that if the Ds accomplish major gun control legislation, the Rs stand a much better chance of regaining power.

After the shit show we've seen since Obama was elected in 08, I have (slowly) realized what the Rs are after and what they're willing to do to accomplish it.
Since 2016, I have not and will NEVER again vote for a R candidate.

I'd be against anything that gives them a better chance at regaining power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, being 'afraid of the backlash' is another way of saying "not willing to attempt something that's doomed from the beginning'.

Yes that is the truth at this point in time. You are not willing ..... "2 - Infringe on rights" yourself. So just go ahead and vent all you want. You and Keith have the same posistion you just want to debate the fine details. You are not willing to give up any rights. That is why I say the problem will need to become large enough for that to become the minority opinion. And given the passion involved I don't mean a narrow minority, it will have to be about 60 to 40 and of course in enough of the small states as well. My guess is at least another 40 years of slowly growing anger before enough becomes enough. Or until the elites who influence the SCOTUS can persuade them to "re-interpret" the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes that is the truth at this point in time. You are not willing ..... "2 - Infringe on rights" yourself. So just go ahead and vent all you want. You and Keith have the same position you just want to debate the fine details. You are not willing to give up any rights. That is why I say the problem will need to become large enough for that to become the minority opinion. And given the passion involved I don't mean a narrow minority, it will have to be about 60 to 40 and of course in enough of the small states as well. My guess is at least another 40 years of slowly growing anger before enough becomes enough. Or until the elites who influence the SCOTUS can persuade them to "re-interpret" the constitution.

When have I said I'm not willing to give up any rights? (honest question)

While I disagreed vehemently with the AWB when it was passed in 94, it really didn't affect me much. 

If they passed the exact same bill again, it wouldn't affect me at all. I'm not looking to purchase anything.

If they enacted 'cradle to grave tracking' (mandatory registration) that wouldn't affect me much either.

If it went way further than I can see possible (say mandatory turn ins like Australia saw), I would not be happy. But I'm not worried about that happening, not in my lifetime.

Nothing I said was about my rights or what I would want to keep or be willing to give up.

It was about what is realistic, what could actually happen, and what the consequences of introducing such laws would be (whether they pass or not).

The rights I'm worried about losing are the ones the Rs have demonstrated a complete willingness to destroy. 
Like the right of a woman to choose what happens with her own body.
Like the right for kids to be who they really are (note: this is one that I've been passionate about for a long time, but has hit home a lot harder is the last 6 months, since I found out one of my sister's children is transitioning from male to female).
Like the right for libraries to have books that some people don't like much.

The Rs have made it clear they want to rule, not govern.

If the Ds shoot themselves in the foot with gun control legislation (pun intended) and put the Rs back into power, I'm seriously scared for the future.

Not mine. I'm an "old white guy". I'd be (mostly) safe.

But the women, the minorities, the marginalized, those that are 'different' would be in real trouble.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then is it your contention that it’s better to increase the carnage to shorten that 40 years, or to try to mitigate it? 
Kind of like the COVID debate; is it better to isolate (giving up “rights” in exchange for lives) or just let ‘er rip? The current calculation is that (in the US), masking and distancing and vaccines likely preserved over a million lives.

And I think there’s something to Joe’s contention that the R’s want to rule, not govern. 

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5