1 1
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The American gun culture is willing to accept facts like those and even far worse. This discussion is pointless. Nothing will change until the majority of the American people want it to change. I know the majority is in favour of background checks. But that won’t be enough.

“Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

BIGUN's posts on the matter seem reasonable to me.

There are two things that people need to agree to for any movement to be made on this.

 

First - the 2nd Amendment isn't going away. There is zero chance of a constitutional amendment being written to ban guns. A gunman could storm the capitol, wipe out the sitting government and the next one STILL wouldn't pass that legislation. Even talking about it does nothing more than generate resistance to any sort of future legislation in gun owners minds. It's self defeating.

Second - what we're doing isn't working. Every law passed gets watered down so much as to be basically ineffectual, while at the same time making future laws more difficult to pass. This is the entire function of the NRA. (well, that and defrauding members). 

 

I've long thought there are a number of changes that would make a difference without limiting the rights granted by the constitution and having some chance of adoption in a meaningful way.

 

1 - The background checks and gun show / private seller loopholes. These need to change. Every gun purchase must go through a dealer who does the appropriate checks. You can order a gun at a show, or buy one from your buddy, but the actual firearm effectively goes through a licensed escrow before you can get it. 

2 - The waiting period for all guns needs to be expanded. There should be no possible way that if you're pissed off on a Monday then you can go on a killing spree on the Tuesday. Give everyone a month to cool off at least.

Those two are easy to write into legislation.

 

Now for some tougher ones.

3 - While you have a right own guns, that right CAN be removed from you under specific and detailed circumstances. This would require a database of who owns what guns, which comes with complications of its own, but these are not insurmountable.

Commit a class 'x' felony and get convicted? Part of your sentence is that you have to give up all of the guns registered in your name or face an extension of your sentence. You get them back 2 years after your sentence is complete under the condition that you haven't been arrested again (or something like this) - the precise wording would need to be worked out.

Use your weapon in a dangerous way (misfire in your house, threaten a spouse etc) - you lose them for a period of time.

*Some sort of provision for mental health has to go in here, and the discussion what constitutes a red flag I think could be a different thread in itself.

Things like this.

4 - You have to have completed a training course suitable for the type of weapons you own, and you have to stay current on it.

 

Now, both of these come with some serious logistical and admin issues, so they're harder to implement.

 

Now for the realm of fantasy.

5- Guns MUST be secured to a particular standard. Your teenage son can't be able to get hold of it when he's had a bad day.

6 - New guns must come with a device that simply prevents them from firing outside of approved areas. Take a gun to a cinema? It isn't going to work. Someone breaks into your home, it will. The technology to do this isn't that complicated if we WANTED to. But I don't see it happening. I've talked in more detail about how this could work before. If this solution was implemented then you could remove ALL limitations on gun ownership - own any gun or ammunition you want.

 

Edited by yoink
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It is also worth mentioning, although a US citizen now, he was born in Syria and has family in Syria.  He purchased his AR pistol, just days after the Biden administration bombed his home country.  Coincidence?

According to the details available his parents brought him over in 2002 when he was 2 years old - clearly too young to remember anything from Syria.

Lots of stuff here to unpick, but it's also been reported that he was not particularly political or religious, but complained a lot about racial abuse as well as what seems to be serious mental illness.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/23/us/boulder-colorado-shooting-suspect/index.html

Share this post


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

How many mass killings in the US have been carried out with knives?  A rough number is OK.

More attackers with knives have been disarmed by unarmed bystanders than have been shot. Knives are far less lethal and the only mass killing with a knife to kill more than 18 was in Japan and those were disabled adults in a nursing home

Typical weak NRA fluff.

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Now, you're sounding all skydekkerish....

Let me know when you're ready to get back on topic and we can discuss the substance of change, rather than the noise surrounding it. .        

I'm ready when you have bone behind your salient points. Wendy has brought a better game to a pro gun position than your last few posts.

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

It is also worth mentioning, although a US citizen now, he was born in Syria and has family in Syria.  He purchased his AR pistol, just days after the Biden administration bombed his home country.  Coincidence?

Straight out of FOX. Irrelevant race and religion baiting for its base. Who swallows it up w/o thought.

48 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

He purchased his firearm before the shooting in GA was reported.

Days before, but stick to picking the rotten cherries.

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 

There will ALWAYS be the most used weapon for mass shootings. If he had two Colt Dragoons he could have killed twelve people.  Slippery slope

Which would not have penetrated the body armor of the attending officer who was killed. In addition the suspect pumped four bullets into the first man he killed outside the store. How does that fit into your skilled military mind whose analysis suggests such a weapon.

IMO so called "assault weapons" could be owned by those who pass the checks and training akin to carry permit possession. The same applies to large capacity magazines.

Statistics show that they are far more law abiding and mentally stable than almost any other demographic. But the gun lobby as illustrated in the last 24 hours of posting in this thread. refuses to compromise. Can't seem to author real ideas and BIGUN seems to have gone AWOL in the skilled argument of fact.

Laws, like politics operates on a pendulum. Eventually it will swing and very restrictive laws will be enacted. Because the pro gun, GOP refuses to keep guns away those who just should not be near any gun.

When the unstable and mentally deranged have their choice. When these young, ignorant, young men decide to attack the innocent. The AR-15 and large capacity magazine is the weapon of choice. Body armor, other than SWAT, becomes irrelevant. The stress of mag changes, irrelevant. Lethality v handgun, no comparison.

For gun owners and the well informed on these issues none of this is new. But dancing around the issues, misinformation and deflection. Will continue until its too late for the responsible gun owner. Then it will be the smelter. The question is, will it take 300,000 or 500,000 more innocents to die before that political will forms. i.e. a decade to five decades.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

BIGUN's posts on the matter seem reasonable to me....

They are generally the best of the pro-gun group. But like Tom Cruise in Top Gun (pardon the pun) he has lost his way.

 

14 minutes ago, yoink said:

BIGUN's posts on the matter seem reasonable to me...

5- Guns MUST be secured to a particular standard. Your teenage son can't be able to get hold of it when he's had a bad day.

Yeah its called a gun safe. Any responsible gun owner has one. They start at $200 used.

15 minutes ago, yoink said:

BIGUN's posts on the matter seem reasonable to me.

6 - New guns must come with a device that simply prevents them from firing outside of approved areas. Take a gun to a cinema? It isn't going to work. Someone breaks into your home, it will. The technology to do this isn't that complicated if we WANTED to. But I don't see it happening. I've talked in more detail about how this could work before. If this solution was implemented then you could remove ALL limitations on gun ownership - own any gun or ammunition you want.

You described this properly as fantasy. But the previous ideas coherently cover the basics.

Good post.

Share this post


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

 

Now for the realm of fantasy.

5- Guns MUST be secured to a particular standard. Your teenage son can't be able to get hold of it when he's had a bad day.

 

That is not fantasy, that should be a simple reality for any gun owner with children.
If you have kids and guns, you must keep the guns in a safe or gun cabinet that cannot be accessed by the kids, preferably a biometric lock.  I lost a high school friend to suicide using his dad’s service revolver.

Share this post


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

The data are clear and obvious to all who choose not to turn a blind eye:

May be an image of text that says 'Gun Deaths and Gun Ownership by Population 125 Gun deaths per million residents 100 U.S. 75 50 25 Italy France Canada Russia Japan Germany Australia 0 20 40 60 Civilian-held guns per 100 residents 80 100 100 Gun deaths comprise suicides, homicides and accidents. All data is from 2017. 120'

Kallend - No doubt that total gun deaths is bad. Does this stat include suicides? Last stats I saw were 2020 numbers reported in 2021. They showed that 57% were suicide, and 0.11% were mass shootings and not all those were deaths. If this discussion is about violence against others then removing the suicides significantly changes the picture. But the stats for the other countries may also include suicides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, yoink said:

I've long thought there are a number of changes that would make a difference without limiting the rights granted by the constitution and having some chance of adoption in a meaningful way.

Thanks for remembering some key points of the gun proposal thread.

Share this post


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

Now for some tougher ones.

From February 24th 2018:

1. License the person (training, use, care, transfer, storage, transport).
2. Background Check (Criminal & Mental – defined as one who has a condition that makes them dangerous) MENTAL ILLNESS: I don't know if a simple yes or no from a healthcare professional would violate HIPPA
3. Waiting Period – 25 weekdays (if waiting period ends on a Friday – Monday pickup).
4. Training
a. 8 days - training, use, care, transfer, storage, transport.
b. 6 Days - CQB in a MOUT environment (automatic (2), revolver (1) shotgun (1), rifle @ the range (2). (*) = days.
5. Gun Show Loophole
a. All new weapons recorded/logged from cradle to grave (manufacturer to each new owner).
b. Existing weapons require
i. Individual sales to have a bill of sale.
ii. [strike}All weapons to be logged/recorded & kept with the owner – failure to produce equals minimum of three years.[/strike] TO BE WRITTEN AS: All guns in existence have one year to be entered into a national database. Any guns not in the database shall be confiscating by local authorities and smelted.  
6. Schools
a. Each school to have a minimum of one armed uniform police officer & one armed uniform security guard (onsite during school hours).
i. Each to carry an assault rifle, automatic pistol, taser, handcuffs, radio/cell).
ii. Both to train in CQB at their specific day w/ the local police department twice a year when class is not in session).
b. Teachers may carry if they choose and adhere to items 1-4
i. Teachers who carry receive $5,000-year special duty pay and must attend the twice a year training (6.a.ii)
c. Random & sporadic locker inspections.
i. Parents & students must sign an acknowledgement to allow.
ii. All students must carry their learning materials in the open (no book bags).

NOTES:
1. Items 1- 5: Cost of gun ownership.
2. Item 6: Both Left & Right have to cut their respective budgets equally at 50% of cost to protect schools. (i.e., Right – military budget. Left – social programs).

Special Notes:
1. Thanks to those that sent me information in a PM (both sides).
2. Everyone has to be receptive to giving up something.

 

 

Edited by BIGUN
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
14 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Thanks for remembering some key points of the gun proposal thread.

I honestly didn't see that thread (or at least I don't remember reading it) but what tells me is that if we can come up with something so close, independently, there MUST be a reasonable consensus that is able to be reached. 

Edited by yoink
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus pretty much always means "well, that part sucks, but I can learn to live with it, and making an agreement is more important than having my way"

The fewer non-negotiables one starts out with, and the clearer the picture of the desired end, the more likely it is.

Wendy P.

Share this post


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

So this + Ken's comment just goes to show that you guys don't get it. Our constitution was written with the express intent of NOT having a government of the minority.

And yet that is exactly what you have had for quite some time, mostly engineered by your party: the GOP.

 

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Having said that, please don't confuse my position with the constitution with not being in favor of well-written legislation that prevents the number of murders by gun in the US. But, what's going to happen is the same old bullshit of the last 30 years. There'll be some legislation banning AWs and/or LCMs and this and that - which will pretty much be a dusting off of the same old legislation the Democrats used the last time, there'll be an election cycle, the pendulum will swing back to the Republicans, etc. etc. And in the end? In the end, we'll have this same fucking conversation five years from now.

I find this is mostly driven by the GOP being absolutely unwilling to cooperate on anything gun legislation related. The GOP has three big rallying cries and "the Dems are going to take your guns" is one of them.

Share this post


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

6. Schools
a. Each school to have a minimum of one armed uniform police officer & one armed uniform security guard (onsite during school hours).
i. Each to carry an assault rifle, automatic pistol, taser, handcuffs, radio/cell).
ii. Both to train in CQB at their specific day w/ the local police department twice a year when class is not in session).
b. Teachers may carry if they choose and adhere to items 1-4
i. Teachers who carry receive $5,000-year special duty pay and must attend the twice a year training (6.a.ii)
c. Random & sporadic locker inspections.
i. Parents & students must sign an acknowledgement to allow.
ii. All students must carry their learning materials in the open (no book bags).

This part continues to make me cringe. Wouldn't sensible gun legislation mean this isn't required? Isn't part of freedom not having to be under armed guard? Where is the slippery slope argument around random warrantless searches?

Share this post


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

From February 24th 2018:

1. License the person (training, use, care, transfer, storage, transport).

Special Notes:
1. Thanks to those that sent me information in a PM (both sides).
2. Everyone has to be receptive to giving up something.

 

 

Welcome back. This is far and beyond any individual post by anyone on this issue. While some of the specific points concede an America thats far too violent and overly vulnerable. It lays out some of the ideas necessary to keep all guns away from those who shouldn't possess them. Yet still allows safe and sane people to own them.

On a separate related issue.

Decline In Hunters Threatens How U.S. Pays For Conservation

Why We Suck at Recruiting New Hunters, Why It Matters, and How You Can Fix It

"Hunting participation peaked in 1982, when nearly 17 million hunters purchased 28.3 million licenses. Hunter numbers have steadily declined since. We lost 2.2 million hunters between 2011 and 2016 alone, according to the National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-­Associated Recreation, a report issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2016, just 11.5 million people hunted. That’s less than 4 percent of the national population."

Which of course runs counter to the current gun buying, gun licensing, stampede of Americans.

Edited by Phil1111
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Now, you're sounding all skydekkerish. I am not some petulant school child with a C grade in Algebra. Do better - geez. 

So this + Ken's comment just goes to show that you guys don't get it. Our constitution was written with the express intent of NOT having a government of the minority. Britain, King, taxation w/o representation, etc., etc. Statements like this cause me grave concern - you all just watched as Trump tried to take power away from the legitimate president-elect.  Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Noriega, all of them - first thing - take the guns from the people. Castro even said while taking their guns, [paraphrase] Why would the people object to the people's party. We just had a revolution.[/paraphrase]

Repressive regimes - Brother I have lived it. What's the second thing to happen after they take the people's guns - imprison enemies of the state IOW: those who speak out against the government. You've heard the phrase regarding our Bill of Rights, "Well, you can't have one without the others." I believe that. 

Having said that, please don't confuse my position with the constitution with not being in favor of well-written legislation that prevents the number of murders by gun in the US. But, what's going to happen is the same old bullshit of the last 30 years. There'll be some legislation banning AWs and/or LCMs and this and that - which will pretty much be a dusting off of the same old legislation the Democrats used the last time, there'll be an election cycle, the pendulum will swing back to the Republicans, etc. etc. And in the end? In the end, we'll have this same fucking conversation five years from now.  

I'll give a "like" to whomever I feel when I feel "like" it and for good reason. I've given "likes" to people that I've had opposing positions with on here for years, but, when the substance of their missive warrants a "like" - I give it.

Let me know when you're ready to get back on topic and we can discuss the substance of change, rather than the noise surrounding it. .        

Hi Keith,

First, I believe that you & I are 'somewhat' in the same boat => We want something to be changed.

Also, some people think that it not fair to pick a portion of a post & attack; I do not.

Re:  What's the second thing to happen after they take the people's guns - imprison enemies of the state IOW: those who speak out against the government.

When you review John Kallend's listings of gun deaths per population of modern societies, your argument is vacant.  Australia did a massive turn-around on gun control & I do not hear or read of  imprison enemies of the state IOW: those who speak out against the government.

And I do know that this ( take the people's guns ) has happened in modern history .

Jerry Baumchen

 

Share this post


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

...- you all just watched as Trump tried to take power away from the legitimate president-elect.  Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Noriega, all of them - first thing - take the guns from the people. Castro even said while taking their guns, [paraphrase] Why would the people object to the people's party. We just had a revolution.[/paraphrase]

Repressive regimes - Brother I have lived it. What's the second thing to happen after they take the people's guns - imprison enemies of the state IOW: those who speak out against the government. You've heard the phrase regarding our Bill of Rights, "Well, you can't have one without the others." I believe that. 

 

Actually, the first thing repressive regimes take away is free & fair elections. 
Look at Myanmar (Burma).
Look at Russia.

Then ask what party is trying to do that here.

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

One of the first things the US did after invading Iraq was restricting civilian ownership of firearms.

True to a point. 

But it's pretty important to remember what that 'restriction' actually meant.

They limited each household to one select fire AK-47 (or equivalent). 
Those are rifles that are highly controlled here in the US. 

I keep hearing 'expand the background check to cover all purchases'.

WHY!?!?!?!?

 

Every single 'mass shooting' that I can recall involved weapons purchased through FFL Dealers. With a background check.
Dylan Roof in Charleston didn't pass the check, but the timing rule allowed him to get the gun. That rule is in place because when Brady passed, there were local officials in a number of places who basically said "Oh, you have to pass a check to get a gun? We'll make sure that those checks take a while. A loooong while."
Gary Martin in Aurora IL passed a background check. When he later applied for a carry permit, a deeper check found a felony in another state. Despite knowing that he had obtained a firearm and was breaking the law, the officials didn't bother to go and arrest him or confiscate the gun. 

There have been thousands (more than that, actually) of people who filled out all the forms and were denied because of what they had on their record. 
They lied on the application forms. That's a crime. There have been very few people prosecuted for that crime. 

I'm all for mandatory training, but that won't prevent this sort of thing. 

I'm not sure how any 'ban' that doesn't involve confiscation will have any effect.
The fear-mongering over the past dozen years or so has put an incredible amount of guns into circulation. Many of them the military style semi autos that are so frightening. And while highly publicized, are rarely used. 
As was noted earlier, there are more guns than people in the US. 

That's a problem that isn't easily tackled. 

I'm willing to listen to good ideas. Ones that will actually make a difference
I have yet to hear any.

As I've noted before, there's a 'DO SOMETHING!!! DO ANYTHING!!! Make me feel SAFE!!' attitude in place. 
We've seen it with the 'security theatre' in airports. 
We've seen it with previous gun control measures.

And when it doesn't work, they ask for more.

The "slippery slope" argument is actually pretty valid for gun control. Back in the early 90s, the Brady Bill passed. Then the "Assault Weapons" Bill. The gun control groups were very happy and had a LOT more planned (look up "Brady 2"). 
Then the 96 mid-terms gave control of congress to the Rs. And it ended.

That's what I fear more than anything right now.

The Ds have a very tenuous grip on power.
The Rs made gains in the House last election, and damned near held onto the Senate.
Trump lost WI by about 20k votes. GA by 11k. 

Many voters were solid Rs, but saw Trump for the wannabe despot he truly was.

I don't know how many will continue to support the Ds. 
DO believe that if there is significant gun control passed, the Ds won't hold onto that power after the 22 mid terms. 

I've said it before that I won't vote R again, unless there is significant party reform (which I no longer believe will happen).
But there are a lot of folks who still support the Rs, and will do so even more if they see their 'gun rights' being 'taken away'. 

Share this post


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

From February 24th 2018:

1. License the person (training, use, care, transfer, storage, transport).
2. Background Check (Criminal & Mental – defined as one who has a condition that makes them dangerous) MENTAL ILLNESS: I don't know if a simple yes or no from a healthcare professional would violate HIPPA
3. Waiting Period – 25 weekdays (if waiting period ends on a Friday – Monday pickup).
4. Training
a. 8 days - training, use, care, transfer, storage, transport.
b. 6 Days - CQB in a MOUT environment (automatic (2), revolver (1) shotgun (1), rifle @ the range (2). (*) = days.
5. Gun Show Loophole
a. All new weapons recorded/logged from cradle to grave (manufacturer to each new owner).
b. Existing weapons require
i. Individual sales to have a bill of sale.
ii. [strike}All weapons to be logged/recorded & kept with the owner – failure to produce equals minimum of three years.[/strike] TO BE WRITTEN AS: All guns in existence have one year to be entered into a national database. Any guns not in the database shall be confiscating by local authorities and smelted.  
6. Schools
a. Each school to have a minimum of one armed uniform police officer & one armed uniform security guard (onsite during school hours).
i. Each to carry an assault rifle, automatic pistol, taser, handcuffs, radio/cell).
ii. Both to train in CQB at their specific day w/ the local police department twice a year when class is not in session).
b. Teachers may carry if they choose and adhere to items 1-4
i. Teachers who carry receive $5,000-year special duty pay and must attend the twice a year training (6.a.ii)
c. Random & sporadic locker inspections.
i. Parents & students must sign an acknowledgement to allow.
ii. All students must carry their learning materials in the open (no book bags).

NOTES:
1. Items 1- 5: Cost of gun ownership.
2. Item 6: Both Left & Right have to cut their respective budgets equally at 50% of cost to protect schools. (i.e., Right – military budget. Left – social programs).

Special Notes:
1. Thanks to those that sent me information in a PM (both sides).
2. Everyone has to be receptive to giving up something.

 

 

Hi Keith,

Re:  Now for some tougher ones.

While there are few things you list that I would not care for, given the choice of where we are today or your recommendations; I would absolutely support every one of them.

Re:  Everyone has to be receptive to giving up something.

ABSOLUTELY - I could not agree more.

This discussion reminds me of the bell curve; now we just have to get rid of both the far right thinking and the far left thinking.  I actually think we are making good progress.

And to Will ( Yoink ), great post, let's keep this going.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

This part continues to make me cringe.

Please understand this was proposed right after the Douglas High School Massacre and I used the Israeli model of protecting schools as a base.  

Quote

Wouldn't sensible gun legislation mean this isn't required? Isn't part of freedom not having to be under armed guard?

We can hope. I have no qualms with my or anybody else's kid being under armed guard at school. 

Quote

Where is the slippery slope argument around random warrantless searches?

It was addressed in Section C I "Parents & students must sign an acknowledgement to allow" and was based on the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause in schools here

Share this post


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

Re:  What's the second thing to happen after they take the people's guns - imprison enemies of the state IOW: those who speak out against the government.

When you review John Kallend's listings of gun deaths per population of modern societies, your argument is vacant.  Australia did a massive turn-around on gun control & I do not hear or read of  imprison enemies of the state IOW: those who speak out against the government.

And I do know that this ( take the people's guns ) has happened in modern history .

I was speaking of dictatorships. Australia's democracy and the Tasmanian Massacre were the catalyst for change from the ground up. And, they did not have a second amendment - which is a major hurdle for the US (Me included).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 hours ago, BIGUN said:

From February 24th 2018: "... b. Existing weapons require
... 
ii. [strike}All weapons to be logged/recorded & kept with the owner – failure to produce equals minimum of three years.[/strike] TO BE WRITTEN AS: All guns in existence have one year to be entered into a national database. Any guns not in the database shall be confiscating by local authorities and smelted.  
..."

Canada tried a (non-restricted) long-gun registry - from 1993 to 2012 - but it proved an expensive flop. Officials stated that its primary purpose was to allow police to determine if a house contained firearms before they entered. Few police consulted the registry. It did fund several federal gov't jobs in Chatham, New Brunswick ... another attempt at buying votes. It cost about $2 million dollars per year, but was eventually cancelled.

The only province that wanted to keep a long gun registry was Quebec. Quebec is the most authoritarian of all provinces. Guess why I moved away 42 years ago. Most of my high school classmates also moved out of Quebec.

Edited by riggerrob
delete a word

Share this post


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

I've said it before that I won't vote R again, unless there is significant party reform (which I no longer believe will happen).
But there are a lot of folks who still support the Rs, and will do so even more if they see their 'gun rights' being 'taken away'. 

Have some faith in the younger "R's" brother. They're more moderate. If any group is going to reform the R party; it's be the 18-38 year old's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Phil 111,

with the shift away from hunting, why are so many "Mericans buying military-style rifles, which are little more than "range toys?"

Is it because of all the "Merican soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I got the impression that the majority of these poorly-regulated "militias" never served a day - in uniform in their lives.

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.

1 1