More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[grimmie 163]

Can we also stop regular citizens from buying body armor and other “tactical” gear.

Hard to stop a shooter in that stuff.

[Phil1111 882]

2 minutes ago, grimmie said:

Can we also stop regular citizens from buying body armor and other “tactical” gear.

Hard to stop a shooter in that stuff.

That is un-A,merican

[gowlerk 1,809]

44 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

That is un-A,merican

Coffee is good.

[riggerrob 558]

On 7/19/2022 at 12:18 PM, billeisele said:

" ... $750 m for mental health type stuff, under the red flag provision a court order can stop someone from buying a gun (suspect that will be challenged in court), the "boyfriend loophole", allows searches of juvenile records, goes after one type of unregistered gun seller, and provides funds for increased school security. 

I would like to see a link between red flag laws and psychological counselling.

In comparison, in some states, if you accumulate too many traffic tickets, state laws compel police to suspend your driver's license, then you need to attend "X" number of hours of driver training before you can regain your license. This re-education often includes a few months learning how to ride a bus (aka. inability to drive a car).

[riggerrob 558]

1 hour ago, grimmie said:

Can we also stop regular citizens from buying body armor and other “tactical” gear.

Hard to stop a shooter in that stuff.

Armored vests and armored SUVs (think fancy, pimped out Lincoln Escalade with tinted windows, etc.)  were banned for civilian ownership in British Columbia because only drug dealers were using them. The majority of shootings in Vancouver are done by or to people "know to police."

Edited July 21, 2022 by riggerrob

[wolfriverjoe 1,277]

6 hours ago, grimmie said:

Can we also stop regular citizens from buying body armor and other “tactical” gear.

Hard to stop a shooter in that stuff.

I can only think of one situation where the 'bad guys' wearing body armor had a significant effect on the outcome (LA Bank of America shootout). After it happened, many if not most of the cops started carrying 'tactical' rifles (mostly AR-type) in their cars.

Keep in mind that a centerfire rifle round (even a 'little' one like the .223/5.56) will penetrate standard body armor with no difficulty.

 

In many places, it's illegal for a convicted felon to own body armor.

In some places, the biggest civilian users of them are liquor store & convenience store clerks and taxi drivers.

[grimmie 163]

I have been at a few robberies where the bad guys had body armor on. One bank job in particular.

I get your point about taxi and mini market clerks .

What a world.

[billeisele 119]

20 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Spot on, Jerry. The Gunhugging transammosexuals will never see a path forward that does not include more guns, and more dangerous guns, for all. Earlier in the thread Bill wrote: "Banning high cap mags may have no impact." So much to unpack there, none of which will ever resonate with BillE, I'm now convinced. There's the "high cap mags" for starters. All just local gun guy talk he'd say, I'm sure, not realizing that it's a neutralizing (I'd argue neuralizing) bit of brainwashing he's been subjected to. In fact, they are High Capacity Magazines for guns used to mass murder people in the current discussion. Then there is the "may have no impact" toss out for the purpose of misdirection.  Of course the banning of high capacity magazines won't eliminate their use tomorrow but it's a real and fair start. Too bad the indoctrinated never give an inch gun crowd believes they can never give an inch. Gun Loving is a religion and you cannot argue people out of a religion. 

 

 

And still no intelligent answer to the basic question.

Fine, ban selling high cap mags. What about the xxx,xxx already out there and the fact that criminals don't obey the law? Require people to turn them in and buy them back?

[gowlerk 1,809]

8 minutes ago, billeisele said:

And still no intelligent answer to the basic question.

Fine, ban selling high cap mags. What about the xxx,xxx already out there and the fact that criminals don't obey the law? Require people to turn them in and buy them back?

That old saw about criminals not obeying the law is among the weakest of all arguments against gun control. They will mostly obey the law just like they obey most laws now. Criminals pick and choose what laws to obey based on what they think they can gain.

[JoeWeber 2,173]

2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

And still no intelligent answer to the basic question.

Fine, ban selling high cap mags. What about the xxx,xxx already out there and the fact that criminals don't obey the law? Require people to turn them in and buy them back?

Is that your trouble, the money? Sure, let's give a tax credit for every banned gun or magazine turned in by a date certain and pay for it with a tax increase on the gun manufacturers who profited heavily from this national disaster. Of course let's also have some serious possession penalties for our troubles. Perhaps a few Texas style turn in your neighbor for a bounty laws would help, too. 

Bill, continuing to argue that criminals don't obey laws as an excuse for doing nothing is hardly an intelligent point. We need to start somewhere by restricting something and it is hardly smart to argue that the something shouldn't include assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Another good start is to stop glorifying the ownership of assault weapons and high capacity magazines and, for those of us with some additional capacity, to stop referring to AR Platforms and high cap mags in those euphemistically cutesy terms as if announcing we're leaving the room to go #2.

[billeisele 119]

21 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

I've had it with the old, 'Hey, look over here,' gambit of the GOP; including you.

You know damn well we are talking about gun killings from Columbine to Uvalde; and nothing else.

So, quit with the handgun deaths.

My neighbor, shooting his wife for having an affair with his best friend, is not the issue here.

My 8-yr old granddaughter possibly getting killed while sitting in class is.

Jerry Baumchen

Mr. Jerry - My concerns aren't complicated. IMO It doesn't make sense to solely focus on AR type firearms when they only account for, at most, 10% of firearm deaths. Ignoring the other 90% from handguns doesn't make sense.

I'm defecting, I'm saying address both of them. I'm concerned about your granddaughter being harmed by indiscriminate use of any type of firearm. 

If AR restrictions are successful, there's no reason the nut cases won't switch to other semi auto rifles and the huge variety of semi auto handguns. Many of those have mag capacities exceeding 12 rounds. Quite a few are in the 18+ range. Yes, less lethal but still a big problem. 

[SkyDekker 1,059]

39 minutes ago, billeisele said:

What about the xxx,xxx already out there and the fact that criminals don't obey the law?

Easy. Same route as the abortion law in Texas.

 

Allow anybody to sue anybody who might be in possession of, or has aided anybody in maintaining, acquiring, loading or providing ammunition for high capacity magazines. Then ensure that those being sued are unable to ever recover legal costs.

[billeisele 119]

16 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Is that your trouble, the money? Sure, let's give a tax credit for every banned gun or magazine turned in by a date certain and pay for it with a tax increase on the gun manufacturers who profited heavily from this national disaster. Of course let's also have some serious possession penalties for our troubles. Perhaps a few Texas style turn in your neighbor for a bounty laws would help, too. 

Bill, continuing to argue that criminals don't obey laws as an excuse for doing nothing is hardly an intelligent point. We need to start somewhere by restricting something and it is hardly smart to argue that the something shouldn't include assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Another good start is to stop glorifying the ownership of assault weapons and high capacity magazines and, for those of us with some additional capacity, to stop referring to AR Platforms and high cap mags in those euphemistically cutesy terms as if announcing we're leaving the room to go #2.

I've never mentioned money as a roadblock. Your theory, unfortunately, ignores many other legitimate issues. I don't know of anyone, that's not far left, that understands this issue, that thinks banning these guns is feasible or would be effective. OK fine, we'll pretend that criminals follow the law, and wait and see how that goes. 

Yes, let's start somewhere. It needs to include rifles and handguns. As stated before, it must be legal and actionable.

What term would you like for these guns and parts? What are the attributes of the guns that you think should be banned?

[billeisele 119]

10 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Easy. Same route as the abortion law in Texas.

Allow anybody to sue anybody who might be in possession of, or has aided anybody in maintaining, acquiring, loading or providing ammunition for high capacity magazines. Then ensure that those being sued are unable to ever recover legal costs.

If I understand the suggestion....it is to allow an injured party to sue the user and owner of the item, and the person that provided the item. Providing that path for ammo is a problem since there are many firearms that won't be on the banned list that use the same ammo.

Herein, IMO, is a part of the problem. It's not as simple as we would like it to be.

I'd like to see legislation to force the gun owner to be more responsible with the gun. Here in SC the sheriff has said that one of the biggest problems he sees is car break ins, primarily unlocked cars, where a handgun is stolen. The owner should be held responsible for "careless handling", fined and be liable when that gun is used in a crime. 

Yep, plenty of problems with implementation but it would be a start and is legal,

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by billeisele

[SkyDekker 1,059]

Just now, billeisele said:

If I understand the suggestion....it is to allow an injured party to sue the user and owner of the item, and the person that provided the item. Providing that path for ammo is a problem since there are many firearms that won't be on the banned list that use the same ammo.

Nope, that isn't it.

 

If you implement the Texas abortion law for high capacity magazines, anybody can sue anybody who they think may have a high capacity magazine for $10,000. They could also sue anybody who has aided in acquiring or using that high capacity magazine for the same amount.

2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

I'd like to see legislation to force the gun owner to be more responsible with the gun. Here in SC the sheriff has said that one of the biggest problems he sees is car break ins, primarily unlocked cars, where a handgun is stolen. The owner should be held responsible for "careless handling", fined and be liable when that gun is used in a crime. 

Agreed. Mandatory storage and transportation requirements. Biometric locks, etc etc.

[JoeWeber 2,173]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

I've never mentioned money as a roadblock. Your theory, unfortunately, ignores many other legitimate issues. I don't know of anyone, that's not far left, that understands this issue, that thinks banning these guns is feasible or would be effective

Baloney.

 

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

OK fine, we'll pretend that criminals follow the law, and wait and see how that goes. 

No one is pretending that, you are simply unable to release your grip on the canard.

 

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yes, let's start somewhere. It needs to include rifles and handguns. As stated before, it must be legal and actionable.

No, it does not need to include "rifles and handguns". You're just trotting out the old red meat nonsense. We can star with assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Neither are needed for hunting or self defense and both would be easy to describe in legislation.

 

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

What term would you like for these guns and parts? What are the attributes of the guns that you think should be banned?

Start calling them by their real names and quit being obtuse. You know full well what we're talking about when we are stating AR-15's and assault style weapons.

[billvon 2,232]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

If I understand the suggestion....it is to allow an injured party to sue the user and owner of the item, and the person that provided the item. Providing that path for ammo is a problem since there are many firearms that won't be on the banned list that use the same ammo.

Well, not just an injured party.  Anyone can sue, similar to how the anti-abortion laws in Texas are written.  Why is that a problem?  People can sue the magazine manufacturer, the ammunition manufacturer, or the person that sold either one.  Simple.

Quote

 It's not as simple as we would like it to be.

Unlike abortion (just ban it, the problem goes away) or CRT (just ban it) or math textbooks that aren't politically correct (just ban them.)  Not sure why you think suing magazine manufacturers is complex or puzzling compared to any of that.

Quote

What about the xxx,xxx already out there and the fact that criminals don't obey the law?

Turn it into a profit stream.  Have amateur sleuths out there digging for info on high capacity magazines.  Ten grand pays for a lot of sleuthing.  And for a criminal who knows another criminal who has a high capacity magazine - turning him in is going to be a lot easier than robbing that liquor store.

[JerryBaumchen 1,024]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Baloney.

 

No one is pretending that, you are simply unable to release your grip on the canard.

 

No, it does not need to include "rifles and handguns". You're just trotting out the old red meat nonsense. We can star with assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Neither are needed for hunting or self defense and both would be easy to describe in legislation.

 

Start calling them by their real names and quit being obtuse. You know full well what we're talking about when we are stating AR-15's and assault style weapons.

Hi Joe,

Re:  You're just trotting out the old red meat nonsense.

As I continue to say, it is the same old GOP Modus Operandi, 'Hey, look over here.'

Anything except to discuss the actual issues.

Shameful!

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,173]

5 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Re:  You're just trotting out the old red meat nonsense.

As I continue to say, it is the same old GOP Modus Operandi, 'Hey, look over here.'

Anything except to discuss the actual issues.

Shameful!

Jerry Baumchen

I really don't think there is an intentional deception, rather it's just what reality is in the location the arguments come from. I've stated it here previously that I believe it has less to do with facts presented and more to do with local society. If someone has spent years naysaying those who believe any gun control is sensible at their favorite gun range or in the company of their duck hunting or hog shooting buddies there is a likely zero chance that anything discussed on an internet blog will inspire an epiphany. In a war of wits between me here and Junior there the outcome is in no doubt.

[grimmie 163]

Maybe we can implement Fahrenheit 451.

But instead of books, gun possession gets your house burned down. 

[billeisele 119]

18 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Baloney.

No one is pretending that, you are simply unable to release your grip on the canard.

No, it does not need to include "rifles and handguns". You're just trotting out the old red meat nonsense. We can star with assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Neither are needed for hunting or self defense and both would be easy to describe in legislation.

Start calling them by their real names and quit being obtuse. You know full well what we're talking about when we are stating AR-15's and assault style weapons.

OK, fine. Continue on with your beliefs and nothing will get done. You offer no credible evidence for your statements. Stating "Baloney" to facts is idiotic. You make baseless personal accusations and "feel good" statements. You ignore the fact that the 2nd will not allow much of what you want. Clearly critical thinking and intelligent conversation are not your thing. 

You like the terms AR-15's and assault style weapon (and argue that no other terms suffice as if you are the king of terminology), are either incapable or unwilling to define the attributes of an assault style weapon, and think that there is some method to legally ban them along with high-capacity mags, and by doing so the gun deaths will magically go away. You are willing to ignore the guns used in well over 90% of gun deaths and think that criminals will bow down to your desires. What fantasy world are you living in? Reality is how things work.

After multiple opportunities you've not made any intelligent statement on the basic questions of legally enforceable and effective gun control. People like you with nonsensical unbending views are why nothing constructive gets done. Roll on with your ranting.

[billeisele 119]

17 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, not just an injured party.  Anyone can sue, similar to how the anti-abortion laws in Texas are written.  Why is that a problem?  People can sue the magazine manufacturer, the ammunition manufacturer, or the person that sold either one.  Simple.

Turn it into a profit stream.  Have amateur sleuths out there digging for info on high capacity magazines.  Ten grand pays for a lot of sleuthing.  And for a criminal who knows another criminal who has a high capacity magazine - turning him in is going to be a lot easier than robbing that liquor store.

Bill - all interesting ideas. It would be interesting to hear a lawyer discuss the feasibility of these actions.

[SkyDekker 1,059]

17 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Bill - all interesting ideas. It would be interesting to hear a lawyer discuss the feasibility of these actions.

You don't think a lawyer drafted the Texas abortion law?

[JoeWeber 2,173]

22 hours ago, billeisele said:

I've never mentioned money as a roadblock. Your theory, unfortunately, ignores many other legitimate issues. I don't know of anyone, that's not far left, that understands this issue, that thinks banning these guns is feasible or would be effective. OK fine, we'll pretend that criminals follow the law, and wait and see how that goes.

Let's try again, "Your theory, unfortunately, ignores many other legitimate issues." Nice to blurt out, please name the many. "I don't know of anyone, that's not far left, that understands this issue, that thinks banning these guns is feasible or would be effective." Obviously, what you consider to be "understanding this issue" is believing nothing is feasible or effective. You just want that to be true. The 1994 ban had positive aspects. Let's bolster it with serious penalties, include all high capacity magazines, increased point of sale checks and high taxes on ammunition, add a buy back program paid for by taxes on the manufacturers and just take the whole thing seriously up to including raising the age of legal purchase to 21 (years beyond high school).  And for the umpteenth time no one is pretending that criminals will follow the law. That said they don't seem keen on committing mass murder with AR-15's which is the school shooters weapon of choice. So, by and large, I do think your statement was baloney.

 

22 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yes, let's start somewhere. It needs to include rifles and handguns. As stated before, it must be legal and actionable.

Keep repeating and it will still be a bunk argument. People hunt and that's a legitimate activity and an American tradition. Honestly, I think semi-automatic rifles for game hunting are wholly unnecessary, certainly none need to have more rounds than 4-5 in the magazine. I always used a bolt action Ruger 77 in 7MM for Elk hunting and went 10 for 10 with never a second shot. Half my duck and pheasant hunting was with a Savage 12ga Single Shot, and later with a Wingmaster Pump just so I could change choke with a quick barrel change. I was never at a disadvantage against the semi-auto guys. So no, it does not need to include rifles and handguns used for hunting, even low capacity semi-auto loading guns. That's just you trying to make it sound worse and a step away from a complete ban.

 

22 hours ago, billeisele said:

What term would you like for these guns and parts? What are the attributes of the guns that you think should be banned?

How many times must I state the same thing? Assault style weapons like AR-15's that are designed to look like military guns and can accept high capacity magazines. The new Sig Sauer MCX SPEAR is emblematic of the problem. It's the civilian version and it's entire purpose is to look badass military. Why do you suppose that is?

 

 

[Phil1111 882]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Bill - all interesting ideas. It would be interesting to hear a lawyer discuss the feasibility of these actions.

Coming soon in California. "Bill 1327 aims to bury those who deal in banned guns in litigation. Awards of at least $10,000 per weapon, and legal fees, will be offered to plaintiffs who successfully sue anyone who imports, distributes, manufactures or sells assault-style weapons, .50-caliber rifles, guns without serial numbers or parts that can be used to build firearms that are banned in California."

Edited July 22, 2022 by Phil1111