4 years of action

[Jofaba]

Based on recent reports of the back-down by Democrats and Liberals from the Assault Weapon Ban because of the obvious political suicide that it would be, I see it that we have less than 4 years to change the general public's view of gun ownership and rights before the attack can take place at full force later down the road.

We can either get banned by congress with the public's approval, get banned against the public's approval, or nor not get banned with full civilian approval. Only one of those options is a risk to us, because if we have the general public's opinion in our favor, then we do not need to fear a lasting or placed objection to our 2nd amendment rights.

As has been stated in previous threads, this is not our opportunity to "chill out". We need to take this time that we've been given to alter the general public opinion that guns are bad, that guns only lead to negative concequences, and that once we get rid of guns all will be good in the world.

We have less than 4 years to equate gun ownership with personal empowerment; we have less than 4 years to equate concealed carry with absolute protection; and we have less than 4 years to equate the concept of the gun with Americana/Irrevocable rights/Patriotism, and make sure that every citizen equates it with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I want to know what kinds of programs, events, parties, legislation, etc that we're willing to hit the roads with to ensure that the next four years ensures that we never have to fight for this right again.

I want the 2nd amendment right to become an inevitable and unavoidable right, something that we can finalize as done, agreed upon, and stamped into gold as an irrevocable truth and right of American citizens.

We can do a lot in 4 years, and if we take this seriously, then this may be our only and last 4 years to work within. We cannot rest or hiccup here, this is happening in real time. We don't have a buffer or the ability to experiment. The time; the only time we are afforded; is now.

So what do we do, what should we do and what can we do? What is your feedback, and CAN WE DO IT?

My response? Yes we can!

 

[Jofaba]

I have to admit I am VERY surprised not to see conversation taking place here. Well, okay. I'll start.

As I see it, our first order of business is to negate the power of the phrase "assault weapon". No one knows what it means who's against it, but it sounds scary and assault is a crime, so of course they should outlaw something that sounds like it should obviously already be illegal. We should be writing the NRA to invest in advertisements which debunk the phrase.

If the NRA or other lobby groups do not want to foot the bill, than we start a non-profit and foot it ourselves.

Directly related, our second order of business is to explain the difference between full auto and semi auto, and educate in how the phrases are used, especially in handguns which are sometimes called "autos".

Our third order of business is to make it our priority to reach out to our anti-gun friends to "give it a shot". Take them to the range, go through an EXTENSIVE safety course, not only because you should anyway, but so they see how "play time got checked at the door", and that "fun" and "responsibility" make for a great marriage.

I won't suggest this as an order of business, but I have an opinion here that I would like to get some response to. I think that we need to embrace some regulation. I personally believe that what I've seen of the Maine system needs some serious attention. Not only will it help clean up some loopholes, and pick up the sagging on things we may consider pretty common sense, but it will show that we support change, but change in a different direction.

Additionally, I think we need to push for a Federal Concealed Carry Permit which allows you to carry in every state, in every town, in every building, across the board. Zero restrictions. I think it should be a lot of work to get one, but once you do, you should be allowed to carry everywhere you're allowed to go unarmed. It should not be expensive. It should require regular updating. But most importantly, it should be designed to WORK, so if some FCC holder gets a restraining order against him and is quoted in police transcript saying "Ill kill you!" that flags the guy BEFORE he does it and ends up on the front page.

I really hope you guys start posting and discussing here. We need to come up with a strategy, not cross our fingers for four years or however long you think it'll be before the subject hits congress and argue our regrets away once it passes.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

I have to admit I am VERY surprised not to see conversation taking place here.

I read it yesterday and to be honest I was a bit gunshy to respond since it felt like it had political overtones to it.

As I see it, our first order of business is to negate the power of the phrase "assault weapon".

I piped up and openly griped about this by starting a thread of my own about the same subject. It didn't go over all that great. I was surprised to see quite a few apathetic responses.

I think that we need to embrace some regulation.

What regulations do you support?

Additionally, I think we need to push for a Federal Concealed Carry Permit which allows you to carry in every state, in every town, in every building, across the board.

I disagree. States should not be told what to do in this sense. The states should set the laws within reason without federal interference. There are exceptions, but to make a sweeping change like this all at once and to make all 50 states abide by this isn't right, IMO.

 

[Jofaba]

Well, it is political isn't it? It's politics that is threatening our 2nd amendment right, or at least threatening to threaten it. Was it the opening sentence about Democrats and liberals? I'm registered as a Democrat, voted for Obama, and have some pretty liberal viewpoints. It wasn't meant to be a slam against them, it's just those are the people pushing this legislation.

I piped up and openly griped about this by starting a thread of my own about the same subject. It didn't go over all that great. I was surprised to see quite a few apathetic responses.

I don't accept apathy as an acceptable response. I see this apparent "back burner"-ing of the issue as an opportunity that we cannot pass up.

What regulations do you support?

I am open to debating it, and what I support I would call "a work in progress". My opinions are already being (positively) shaped by having some engaging conversations here, as this forum is the first time I've had access to people with completely opposing viewpoints that actively engaged in friendly conversation and I love it.

That said, I think that you should either have to pass a basic safety class to own a firearm, OR should have been taught safety by a family member. A simple "yes, I taught him and hes safe" style letter, handwritten if you want, signed in witness of a licensed official and that would sit in place of whatever certificate of safety course completion that would otherwise be required.

I don't understand why some states have open carry free of legislation but those same states make you jump through hoops and pay high fees to conceal carry.

For states that require a class, such as Maine, to apply for a CCP, that class should actually teach you something, and not simply meet requirements. My class left quite a bit to be desired, and I still know pretty much nothing about some pretty important issues. I plan on taking a two day 10 hour long course which includes live fire at my gun range. The class I took was two hours long and mostly consisted of a guided tour of filling out paperwork.

I disagree. States should not be told what to do in this sense. The states should set the laws within reason without federal interference. There are exceptions, but to make a sweeping change like this all at once and to make all 50 states abide by this isn't right, IMO.

Just like I see the thinking behind anti-nationalized medicine (and have been swayed), I see your point. There should be a different approach, perhaps, but I don't think that to carry throughout the USA should cost you thousands of dollars a year (don't know the actual amount, but it's not even possible anyway I don't think, as Maine appears to be residential only, so if you're not a resident, I do not think you can carry here). And I don't think that a place like a Mall has a right to ban your right to carry if you are capable of doing so safely. I don't like the fact that an uninformed store owner can say that I can't go into their store. I respect their right to be anti-gun, but my idea of a federal concealed carry permit would put you up there with law enforcement in that regard, that you are above-and-beyond qualified.

 

[azredhawk44]

I think that we need to embrace some regulation. I personally believe that what I've seen of the Maine system needs some serious attention. Not only will it help clean up some loopholes, and pick up the sagging on things we may consider pretty common sense, but it will show that we support change, but change in a different direction.

I'm not interested in any more regulation. No, thank you.

I'm registered as a Democrat, voted for Obama, and have some pretty liberal viewpoints.

You come across to me like a "fifth columnist." You voted for the guy and party that wants our guns, then come here and tell us to initiate the compromise process so that we lose even more than if we dig in our heels and fight for all that's dear and holy.

No thank you.

I'll not be playing your game.

That said, I think that you should either have to pass a basic safety class to own a firearm, OR should have been taught safety by a family member.

Open to Jim-Crow-style abuse, nepotism, or abusive bureaucratic procedures to inhibit an inalienable right. No.

Additionally, I think we need to push for a Federal Concealed Carry Permit which allows you to carry in every state, in every town, in every building, across the board.

So that my Arizona one, perfectly secure in the AZ political climate, can be repealed under Federal Supremacy? So that "one of the parties" can decide to rescind that one across the nation rather than fight 40+ states individually?

No. There's already too much Federal concentration of power. No more. In fact, how about cutting Federal power to 10% of its current level, along with taxes? (Obviously not gun related, but considerably more sensible).

It lives under a bridge, folks...

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Well, it is political isn't it? It's politics that is threatening our 2nd amendment right, or at least threatening to threaten it. Was it the opening sentence about Democrats and liberals? I'm registered as a Democrat, voted for Obama, and have some pretty liberal viewpoints. It wasn't meant to be a slam against them, it's just those are the people pushing this legislation.

If the thread is to be politically focused, I must bow out. We're allowed to discuss legal and civil rights, but we cannot engage in political discussion. It doesn't have to do with me wanting to, because I do. It has to do with the forum rules.

I don't accept apathy as an acceptable response.

I don't accept it as an answer either personally. But the reality is people are apathetic to the use of the term. The only thing you can do is discuss the debate here, contact your local congressman, and don't give in to using the term when it isn't warranted.

That said, I think that you should either have to pass a basic safety class to own a firearm, OR should have been taught safety by a family member. A simple "yes, I taught him and hes safe" style letter, handwritten if you want, signed in witness of a licensed official and that would sit in place of whatever certificate of safety course completion that would otherwise be required.

IMO, this would be about as useful as your parent handing out your drivers license.

And I don't think that a place like a Mall has a right to ban your right to carry if you are capable of doing so safely. I don't like the fact that an uninformed store owner can say that I can't go into their store. I respect their right to be anti-gun, but my idea of a federal concealed carry permit would put you up there with law enforcement in that regard, that you are above-and-beyond qualified.

A place of business is the same as your own home. It's the business owner's private property. He(or she. I use he as a generic prose so I don't have to say he/she every time) has the right to impose whatever rules they want. I also have the right to shop elsewhere if I don't like his rules.

 

[B.H.]

I don't think that we need anymore regulations. We already have enough laws on the books which are hardly enforced. We don't need any more feel good legislation.

I don't think that they need any federal right to carry license. A great deal of states already have ccw and they have reciprocity with other states that recognize each others permits. There are some states out there that dont recognize other states permits but they should.

As far as the term "assault weapon" well that is any weapon that is used to assault someone. The media likes to use terminology that is misleading so they can frighten all the sheeple out there.

 

[Jofaba]

I agree that "new" regulation sound scary. A week ago I was for nationalized health care and now I'm not so certain. I actually love a response like yours because it makes me think of things differently, which is exactly what I am looking for personally.

I think some of the regulation on the books is horrible. Most should be repealed and discarded. Some should be reworded, and some should be put on the books that isn't already there.

Even that is open to debate. I've changed my mind on so much based on sane arguments here, and that's my entire point. I want to get conversation to that point, where we can debate and agree to some sort of conclusion, then fight for those rights.

I'm not sure what a fifth columnest is but I am not here on any special program or situation. I do understand wondering why I'd vote for a guy whos threatened to take away one of my most important rights, but as I've said in previous threads; I do believe that our voices can be loud enough to influence our president; that we have the power to "change his mind".

I recognize that abuse can happen and I am open to suggested alternatives. I hold no fever induced notions that I have the best ideas out there. I simply see a lack of leadership to move towards the best alternative and have decided to take to heading the voice and opening the wings. I hope that an entirely more educated person bumps be down and takes over, I am NO ONE. I have some half caked ideas and I beg that someone more informed takes over and helps our community. My entire goal of this thread is to get a better leader to step forward.

I do not want any federal ccp to overpower locally entrusted permits. I see it as a "level two" kind of permit. Only if you want it, and it lets you do the whole country. I do not at all think it should affect any current programs.

 

[Al Norris]

I think we need to push for a Federal Concealed Carry Permit which allows you to carry in every state, ...

We may travel from State to State, without having any other drivers license because the States themselves arranged for reciprocity agreements.

The Feds had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Why? There is nothing within the constitution that gives the Feds any such police power. Not even the Interstate Commerce Clause works at this level. Don't confuse individual licensing with commercial licensing... That the Feds can and do regulate.

So it is with concealed carry permits. Individual reciprocity agreements between the States are at work, in exactly the same manner. Yet, because it is guns and not automobiles, there are and will be differences.

I think that we need to embrace some regulation.

What more regulation do we need? Firearms are already heavily regulated by both the Feds and the States (and in many States, the local city and/or county).

I don't understand why some states have open carry free of legislation but those same states make you jump through hoops and pay high fees to conceal carry.

Which States are you talking about? I know it isn't Idaho, Montana, Wyoming or Arizona. We are open carry States and we have some of the most lenient concealed carry laws there are (Vermont and Alaska excepted).

As for actually answering your question, I can't. Not without a long dissertation on why and how concealed firearms were met first with public derision, then with legislative and judicial disdain. It's a history of highwaymen; Duels; Gamblers and such.

Given that the Bad Guys still carry concealed, it's no wonder that the States want to make sure you are in fact a law abiding citizen before they issue you your permit.

I read it yesterday and to be honest I was a bit gunshy to respond since it felt like it had political overtones to it.

Absolutely it is political. But it is calling for activism, which is perhaps the only real political thread that can survive in this forum (See my notes in this sticky).

I may have more comments, later on.

 

[Jofaba]

I may be calling to arms on this subject as the originator, but I am more than willing to pass this on to a more willing leader given the opportunity.

But we do have an opportunity here. I feel that I can help us push towards a point, but there are probably better men out there with better ideas who can move us forward. Someone needs to lead us though, and we need to be active and know that our opinions are taken into account. Whoever moves us forward has to be for us and work for us. We have perhaps 4 years. We can't mess around. Someone take up the code of arms and command the spirit, or I will.

We have a real job here; this isn't some statement to be dropped a week later like an old thread that's lost interest. This is about our rights, our lives, this isn't a joke.

 

[roy reali]

4 Years?

We actually have two years. That is if the GOP can wise up. But don't hold your breath on it!

 

[Jofaba]

I say 4 years because that is presidential time.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Absolutely it is political. But it is calling for activism, which is perhaps the only real political thread that can survive in this forum (See my notes in this sticky).

And I fully understand your sticky. My point being is with the overtone of political nature, I tend to stand aside for a while until other members chime in. I want to make sure that the discussion remains within the set rules before I jump in. In the past, I've had a bad habit of being an early participant of drifting threads off-topic involving political discussion. I found that if I read the OP and spend more time thinking an less time typing off the bat, I keep myself out of trouble.

I do not want any federal ccp to overpower locally entrusted permits. I see it as a "level two" kind of permit. Only if you want it, and it lets you do the whole country. I do not at all think it should affect any current programs.

If you want a type of "level two" permit, how is this really valid if the intent isn't to affect any current program? If a state doesn't have CCW, like Illinois, how does the "level two" federal permit hold water in that state without affecting their program?

 

[roy reali]

So!

If the GOP could take control of congress, the point about the president is moot. As I said earlier, don't count these chickens before they hatch.

 

[Jofaba]

I think that every state should have a ccw permit and if they don't, I see that as proof that a federal all-around permit right should exist.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

I think that every state should have a ccw permit and if they don't, I see that as proof that a federal all-around permit right should exist.

But now you're back to having federal laws overriding state laws. Take a gander at the Constitution....

 

[Jofaba]

But now you're back to having federal laws overriding state laws. Take a gander at the Constitution....

Yes, it is a conundrum. Before I make another comment on it I think that I should reread the constitution and rearrange my program. It is easy to think you've got the best answer to a question but the constitution and the BOR is the core of our country and should be what guides us to the best answer, never something to bump against and try to twist for your own means.

EDIT: rereading this thread makes this post sound, at least to my early morning groggy mind, that I'm just swinging for the benches with a brand new bat.

What I mean by it, is that I entirely believe in the constitution and the bill of rights, and wouldn't want a "good intentions" idea to run against their grain. The BOR is designed to be amended and you can argue about how good/bad that is (it took away then gave us back liquor, you can stand on either side of that debate), but I think that it is perfectly worded in this case, I believe.

It is open for interpretation of course, those damn pesky commas, but that's why we have the judicial system.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Introduce new people to shooting. It is really that simple. The VAST majority of anti-gun people I have met have never fired a gun.

 

[cracked91]

Well, its four years to stock up on as many soon-to-be-illegal weapons as you can

 

[JWT]

Introduce new people to shooting. It is really that simple. The VAST majority of anti-gun people I have met have never fired a gun.

Excellent idea. In the past week I had the opportunity to help introduce two women to shooting. Neither had ever fired a gun and both indicated an interest to try it just to see if they liked it. Spent an hour or so discussing safety and then took them to a local range. Both ladies enjoyed the experience and will likely take a formal basic handgun course and then decide if they want to get more 'involved' in shooting.

If they do, they'll almost certainly introduce their friends to shooting and in the process change how they view 'guns'.