Where do we stand in the current fight?

these shootings have only been occurring since about 1999).
Click to expand...
I suggest you do some further research. The CURRENT assault weapon frenzy began a decade earlier, and mass shootings predate that by a considerable amount.

The biggest mass attack in the US was with a bomb in the 1920s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster).
Click to expand...

Nearly correct. The biggest mass killing at a SCHOOL (to date) was the Bath attack.

Others things that didn't happen at a school, such as the attacks of 9/11/2001 were much, much worse. And no guns were used there, either.

So I am not sure how one would describe those who do not support gun ownership (2nd Amendment) rights. Other than call them Anti Gun..
Click to expand...
I call them bigots.

What else do you call someone with an irrational hatred of someone or something, based on what it looks like? TO me the fear of an inanimate object and ascribing to it the power to control human behavior is not rational.

I don't know if you could correctly call it a mental health problem in the traditional sense, all of the mass shooters were at least borderline functional. What we have, as I see it is a serious mental ATTITTUDE problem.

People, for various reasons, believe they are owed the world as they wish it to be, and think it is valid to kill other people when they don't get it.

CHANGE THAT, and the problem will go away.

And no, I don't have an easy fix for that. I doubt there is one.

Which leads to the second problem, the fact that too many people demand an instant solution, and accept anything that someone promises is one.
 
New York Sate passed a Safe Act requiring all AR 15's to be registered by a certain date. All they got was a 4% compliance rate. The other 96% did not register.
 
How can they know who registered if there was no registry before? Maybe the 4% was 100% and the other 96% were gone.
 
you have to fill out a back ground check and also the store where you bought it has to keep a record of what gun they sold you. I believe that is how they know or at least how they estimate. It was the State Police that made the statement that only 4% registered. A few have been modified to be NY legal with pinned magazines or removal of the pistol grip. Ar 15's are being sold all over the state now as being NY compliant. You can buy them at stores and gun shows, all with a back ground check.
 
About a year or two ago Sylvester Stallone comes out for more gun control
Click to expand...

And Stallone is a HUGE hypocrite, as a local colleague of mine who waited on him often at Pony Express in L.A. can attest to.
 
Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone but while you may have a well-regulated right to have a weapon and I suppose as many as you can afford, you have no right to overthrow a democratically elected government. If you think this government is bad, just wait.
Click to expand...

First, we do not have a "well-regulated" right to have a weapon. I don't know where you get this from?

Second, Hitler was democratically elected. Tyrants can be democratically elected. While I completely agree that nothing today would warrant any violent overthrow of the President or Congress, there could come a time in the future where such action would be necessary, proper and in the spirit of our Constitution. Here are several examples of where the citizens of this country probably should take action:

1. A president extends his presidency beyond his elected term through executive action and Congress refuses to impeach.

2. A president targets a group of citizens for extermination through executive action and Congress refuses to stop him.

3. A president commits a heinous crime against an individual or group of individuals and Congress refuses to act.

4. A president takes action to eliminate one or both houses of Congress.

All of these things have happened in history and can happen again, given the right set of circumstances. THIS is why we, the people, are given the right to own firearms by the Constitution.
 
That's right all we need is the right combination of circumstances.
We could easily loose gun rights, as easily as we can loose other rights.
Congress has failed to react in many instances... Not enough for any citizen action.

The funny thing is, the 2nd has been infringed upon. There's not much stronger wording.

People are begging for more restrictions across the board, not just guns.

People are asking for government to sidestep the constitution and due process to restrict gun rights. The president is asking congress to sidestep due process, other politicians are asking to sidestep due process.. This is scarier than terrorism.
 
A few random thoughts

1. My prediction: I think that the frequency of multiple victim shootings and the incessant media coverage will wear down many Americans. They will eventually be willing to vote for more state regulations on gun sales, be it background checks or mag limits or who-knows-what for the sake of "feeling safer." As a pale comparison, I'm freakin' done with the new Star Wars movie and I haven't even seen it yet from the non-stop commercials for the movie, the tie-in merchandise etc. People get tired and "just want it to go away." In a world with an increasing number of helicopter parents and children raised under helicopter parents, we should expect that the desire "to just be safer" via the higher power of government will increase. Moreover, it seems that as people grow more attached to their virtual friends and less attached to their neighbors down the street, people have grown less trusting. People will probably be more willing to accept gun control b/c they have generally lost a certain level of trust in their people around them. it's not a happy prediction.

2. It does no one any good when the media conflates terrorist gun violence with any 'garden variety' gun violence. I don't approve of either type, but it underscores the danger of poor description. How can an educated population make good decisions based on poor facts and distinctions. Don't think that your state will be safe from making bad decisions when the issues are laid out with poor facts.

3. The San Bernadino shootings are a "Reichstag fire" moment and we need to be very careful. The fire was a real crime, but hardly a national existential event, that was used to political gain by the Nazi party. Likewise, the SB attack has many people asking how someone on a gov't watch list could purchase a firearm. Having watched the attempts of people to get off the list over the past several years, and the circular reasoning used by the Federal government to hide their mechanism for adding people, I don't think anyone who is paying attention could think that solution is a good one. Anyone who has played chess knows that it might take a few rounds before the hammer comes down after a bad move. Giving that sort of power over rights to the government, no matter what the good intentions, could be a disaster 20 years from now.

4. I've found that most people who think that we need more background checks on purchases or more controls on ammo don't know what already exists. My first statement when confronted by someone's declaration that a new law would have produced a different outcome is to ask "how do you figure that?" I let them speak their piece and then we can start discussing the pros/cons of their plan. Generally, a glaring "loophole" develops and it centers around free will.

5. Change the viewpoint. Being Catholic, I look at the world in terms of obligations and duties first and then through the lens of rights. When I discuss the 2nd Amendment, I tell people that it's my duty to have a means of helping to defend my community if called by the government. Then I ask, "How would you do that?" If there is a silver lining in the sorrow of the SB event, perhaps everyday people will think "how could I have made a difference?" and start to consider carrying a firearm. 14 years ago, the nation was told to "go shopping." During the invasion of Iraq, the average citizen was just a spectator watching CNN. Now it's obvious that we all have skin in the game, some people will step up to make a difference. My hope is that these people with a new understanding that the fighting might take place in their hometown will start to turn a critical eye on more anti-gun legislation as they take an interest in firearms to defend themselves, their family, and/or their community.

6. Don't be angry but don't relinquish the moral high ground. I had a discussion with the more peacenik members of my family a few weeks ago after the Oregon shootings. One told me that she trusted in the "goodness of her fellow man." I told her I did also, enough that I don't care if they have arms. "Which one of us trusts them more?"
 
The "well-regulated" part is found somewhere in the 2nd amendment. I do agree, that it isn't all that obvious.

You have brought up a number of issues. Let me ask you a few questions.

What group of people does the government intent to exterminate. Am I a member of any such group now or in the future (the government defines the group)?

If you think the president is a tyrant, do you think there will be no more elections?

If the government were overthrown by revolution, do you think there will be more elections?

Do you support the violent overthrow of government (any government)?

What leads you to believe that the president has the power to do any of the things you fear?

Do you think the Speaker of the House, who does not achieve his office in a general election by the people, has more power than the president? Would he do anything you fear?

Will anything happen in the next fifteen years, which is all I'm worried about?
 
In all of human history has there ever been a failed corrupt government?

Are all governments on this planet filled with good leaders and treats their constituents well?

Indeed, all governments fail, the current system will too. All governments turn corrupt.
The founders put in provisions to preserve this system as long as possible. You start taking away these provisions, however unlikely it is to be abused, you leave an opening. We don't want openings.

All governments go down this path, all politicians attempt to skirt the fringes of constitutionality.
 
You have brought up a number of issues. Let me ask you a few questions.

What group of people does the government intent to exterminate. Am I a member of any such group now or in the future (the government defines the group)?

There is no "the government". There is a President. There is Congress. A lot of people are shocked about what this president has done with "executive orders". What might another president do using "executive orders", using the precedent that has now been established?

If you think the president is a tyrant, do you think there will be no more elections?

I don't think this president is a tyrant. However, I think he has set a very dangerous precedent using "executive orders" to try to go around Congress in negotiating treaties with foreign nations, among other things. Why wouldn't a president, with a willing congress, be able to extend his term by executive order?

If the government were overthrown by revolution, do you think there will be more elections?

That really depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?

Do you support the violent overthrow of government (any government)?

Presently? Absolutely not! But we are no more evolved than the Nazis were under Hitler; or terrorists are under ISIS. Once our liberties have eroded enough to where those who control government think we the people serve their purposes, and if criminal tyrant were to come into power whom Congress refused (or was powerless) to impeach, then yes, I could see supporting the violent overthrow of such a government.

What leads you to believe that the president has the power to do any of the things you fear?

1. The passage of ObamaCare through special deals, trickery and congressional maneuvering. 2. The signing of a treaty with Iran without Congressional approval. 3. Obama circumvented Congress to appoint Richard Cordray to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; 4. Obama's proposed executive action to import thousands of Syrian Refugees; these are but a few examples.

Do you think the Speaker of the House, who does not achieve his office in a general election by the people, has more power than the president? Would he do anything you fear?

I think when Nancy Pellosi was the Speaker of the House, Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader and Obama was President, they conspired to do something the majority of Americans did fear and as a result lost the house and congress to the Republicans.

Will anything happen in the next fifteen years, which is all I'm worried about? Adolf Hitler was just released from prison on December 20 1924 where he was serving time for high treason. He was released against the state prosecutor's objection. On January 30, 1933 Hitler was inaugurated Chancellor of Germany - this happened in less than 10 years!
 
We really need to keep guns away from mentally ill people. If not we will wind up with unreasonable gun legislation.
Click to expand...

And how do we judge who is mentally ill? Obviously there are some very "black" examples, as in the principle of black and white, but what about the grey areas? Unfortunately, the "argument of the beard" comes into play here; What constitutes mentally ill and what doesn't?

It's a veritable can of worms here folks.
 
Where a person has become mentally unstable, enough so as to call attention to themselves, and then a Police Officer called to a dwelling/scene, places this person under arrest on a warrant of comital? I think that is the term.

The person is watched over, restrained for three days.

Now it gets tricky! As Dr.s get involved. But the initial arrest, based on stopping a person hurting themselves, or others, seems to be not a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top