Should the NRA take the initiative on future gun legislation
- Thread starter surg_res
- Start date
The gun lobby seems to have prepared to abandon the assault rifle
Which I am not sure is not what it is going to take but let's wait a few months until another gorilla is shot or something to move the news very fickle news cycle.
We have spent years painting it as the good guys (with concealed handguns, police officers with sidearms, etc) vs the bad guys (who seem to be using "assault rifles"). This has gone as far as to bemoan the use of "military style" equipment by police officers. Yes I know they were talking about things like armored personal carriers but do you think the idea stopped there?
We have also allowed the term "deadly mass shooting" to be used freely with words like "worst" which by definition involve guns. We have not pointed out that far more deadly events such as Oklahoma City and the Twin Towers had nothing to do with guns.
We have allowed those espousing "reasonable" gun control to use unreasonable goals "not one more life" knowing that no amount of laws (even an entire banning) will ever reach that goal. Because we have allowed the argument to be between the fringes at the ends of the spectrum no one has actually argued what reasonable is.
We have abandoned the "assault rifle". Maybe its for the best but somehow I still feel like this type of division only extends an inevitable outcome of more gun control.
You want meaningful legislation? Use the NFA as an example for a select few items ("assault" rifles, high capacity magazines, etc). No ban on ownership but requirements and guarantees to those that would own them legally and be thoroughly vetted (with removal of local officials ability to block without cause). But... you cannot have a reasonable discussion with those who do not have reasonable goals either.
Which I am not sure is not what it is going to take but let's wait a few months until another gorilla is shot or something to move the news very fickle news cycle.
We have spent years painting it as the good guys (with concealed handguns, police officers with sidearms, etc) vs the bad guys (who seem to be using "assault rifles"). This has gone as far as to bemoan the use of "military style" equipment by police officers. Yes I know they were talking about things like armored personal carriers but do you think the idea stopped there?
We have also allowed the term "deadly mass shooting" to be used freely with words like "worst" which by definition involve guns. We have not pointed out that far more deadly events such as Oklahoma City and the Twin Towers had nothing to do with guns.
We have allowed those espousing "reasonable" gun control to use unreasonable goals "not one more life" knowing that no amount of laws (even an entire banning) will ever reach that goal. Because we have allowed the argument to be between the fringes at the ends of the spectrum no one has actually argued what reasonable is.
We have abandoned the "assault rifle". Maybe its for the best but somehow I still feel like this type of division only extends an inevitable outcome of more gun control.
You want meaningful legislation? Use the NFA as an example for a select few items ("assault" rifles, high capacity magazines, etc). No ban on ownership but requirements and guarantees to those that would own them legally and be thoroughly vetted (with removal of local officials ability to block without cause). But... you cannot have a reasonable discussion with those who do not have reasonable goals either.
Pond James Pond
New member
In absolute terms, you're right, but the public don't see those in the same light. Those two atrocities were one-offs in the minds of many; the work of politically motivated extremists (McVeigh) and terrorist masterminds (OBL).
My guess is that the fact such shootings don't happen in a Federal Building or a world renowned landmark, but in shopping malls, cinemas and night clubs makes them feel more relevant for every-day people, even though a chain of events can be traced connecting the Twin Tower attacks to the current existence of Daesh now.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I don't understand why the pro-gun, pro-2A side is allowing the anti-gun side to get away with this. The simple fact is that the Orlando shooter was NOT on any watch list, so enacting a "no fly, no buy" law or regulation would accomplish exactly nothing to prevent another self-radicalized sleeper like him from doing the same thing. The shooter had passed multiple background checks, and held TWO Florida armed security licenses. He was a rent-a-cop.
In short, he WAS the guy the gun grabbers tell us will protect us from people like him.
In short, he WAS the guy the gun grabbers tell us will protect us from people like him.
Exactly.
Advocates of gun control act like they are playing a zero-sum game, that their proposals will reduce or eliminate fatalities caused by criminal and terrorist acts, without costing the lives of any people who would otherwise be able to defend themselves. The absurdity of that reasoning needs to be brought to the forefront.
I could support one or more measures that reduce the access of criminals and terrorists to guns without an equal or greater reduction in the access of the ordinary citizen to defensive weapons, but I have yet to see a single proposal that accomplishes that.
zincwarrior
New member
However, pro-gun advocates are losing the support of the middle. They have effectively lost Democrats. If they lose the middle the Second Amendment will be dead within a decade.
Constant mass shootings WILL do that. if it is not addressed, kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.
And it hasn't been addressed. There is no Omnibus Bill that combines background check reform (forcing full compliance of states to provide accurate and timely information); mental health reform (the real deal); and other reform that has been voted on by both houses awaiting Presidential signature or veto. Nothing.
Constant mass shootings WILL do that. if it is not addressed, kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.
And it hasn't been addressed. There is no Omnibus Bill that combines background check reform (forcing full compliance of states to provide accurate and timely information); mental health reform (the real deal); and other reform that has been voted on by both houses awaiting Presidential signature or veto. Nothing.
zincwarrior
New member
Unless there were domestic violence charges likely not. It could however have stopped a few of them: the Louisiana theater shooter; one of the LS shooters; and possibly the VMI shooter as examples.
Again, if gun owners do nothing, they will lose this fight, and they are losing. They make themselves look like the problem, instead of part of the solution. This is fast becoming a campaign issue at the executive and legislative level, and there is a very good chance one or both houses could go Democratic.
We already have laws that strip the incompetent of the right to possess firearms.
I wouldn't recommend doing nothing. I also wouldn't recommend additional restrictions that will not prevent the problem in order to create an illusion of action.
Opposing frivolous legislation is doing something.
zincwarrior said:
I wouldn't recommend doing nothing. I also wouldn't recommend additional restrictions that will not prevent the problem in order to create an illusion of action.
Opposing frivolous legislation is doing something.
Maybe. Maybe not. As effective as the anti-gun crowd has been in the past it appears, from what I can tell, it has descended into pointless hyperbole at this point. It used to be a call for "reasonable" action. I don't even see that call now. Frankly I don't see a coherent message (despite that cute fillibuster). I think there is too much confidence there that things are just going to change. Or maybe its the right amount.
Last edited:
If there was a law proposed that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, every gun owner would be all for it. No such proposal has ever been made. Titling the bill with its supposed intent, does not make it so. Every proposed law that would supposedly have kept guns out of the hands of criminals has always had the same effect when passed. It keeps hands out of 300 people being shot at in a club, but not the ISIS terrorist firing on them. it keeps guns out of the hands of a bunch of county employees in San Bernardino, but not the ISIS terrorist firing on them. It disarms the entire nation of France, but not the ISIS terrorists firing on them, and on and on and on. There is no evidence that stopping a sale has ever kept anyone from getting a gun. None.
I think the Democratic party has a snowballs chance in hades of taking back the house. The senate? I'd say that is a coin flip depending on how things turn out between trump and hillary.
I'm not even worried about what if we lose the house, because I don't think it can happen. What I am worried about is what is the house currently going to support? Even the republican held house is likely to sign off on some sort of legislation at this point. If Bill Orielly comes out saying "enough is enough"... well we have problems folks. I was skeptical at first but I think the tide may have turned more than we could have predicted.
Colorado Redneck
New member
Driving under the influence is an example of how things could work. I know that driving is a privilege, so no need to educate me---this is just an example of how laws and regulations can be effective.
When I was going to college in Colorado in the late 60's there were often class mates that were arrested for DUI. A good lawyer would often get them off with little consequence, and even if tried and convicted, the first offense amounted to a couple of months having no drivers license and a small fine. Fast forward to the present. Now a person that gets a DUI is in for a lot of money and consequence. Last I saw it cost about $10,000 to get your license reinstated, buy insurance, and there is often jail time, convicted offenders are required to attend AA meetings and do some significant time performing community services.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-colorado.html
In 1982 there were 422 fatalities that involved drunk drivers, and in 2014 there were 187 fatalities. Needles to say the total number of drivers has increased a lot over that time. Other things certainly factor in, but it would be ludicrous to pretend that tougher laws and stiffer consequences had no effect.
The two points are:
1. The tougher regulations were very effective
2. There are still offenders that get by, and still drinkers that kill people while driving.
No laws or regulations are perfect. In my mind, trotting out the argument that this shooter could have still acquired his weapons is only a method of detracting from meaningful dialogue about how to do better at keeping guns out of the hands of killers.
When I was going to college in Colorado in the late 60's there were often class mates that were arrested for DUI. A good lawyer would often get them off with little consequence, and even if tried and convicted, the first offense amounted to a couple of months having no drivers license and a small fine. Fast forward to the present. Now a person that gets a DUI is in for a lot of money and consequence. Last I saw it cost about $10,000 to get your license reinstated, buy insurance, and there is often jail time, convicted offenders are required to attend AA meetings and do some significant time performing community services.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-colorado.html
In 1982 there were 422 fatalities that involved drunk drivers, and in 2014 there were 187 fatalities. Needles to say the total number of drivers has increased a lot over that time. Other things certainly factor in, but it would be ludicrous to pretend that tougher laws and stiffer consequences had no effect.
The two points are:
1. The tougher regulations were very effective
2. There are still offenders that get by, and still drinkers that kill people while driving.
No laws or regulations are perfect. In my mind, trotting out the argument that this shooter could have still acquired his weapons is only a method of detracting from meaningful dialogue about how to do better at keeping guns out of the hands of killers.
Pond James Pond
New member
Well, then the trick is how to make the wider public see that these are part and parcel of the same thing and not distinct events, but how to do that in the minds of the general population who feel removed and isolated for such events, unlike the actions of a marauding shooter.
What does such a background check entail?
Who did the psych evaluation and did they do it correctly?
Was it the last appointment on a Friday afternoon after a tough week?
This needs to be established before saying the existing steps are ineffective and new ones need to be added. It may simply be that they were done badly. After all a system of checks and balances and safeguards are only as good as their execution.
Last edited:
True, but, what are the extents of current background / security / psych tests?
According to an ex FBI agent that was interviewed on Fox News last night, the current testing / evaluations have been watered down and neutered by the Obama Administration. Just about anyone could pass.
